@Zerglingman
Here's my reasoning: if you want to improve something, it's because you already find value in it & want to use it. But the open-source community overall hardly seems fond of Windows, and they already think they have and use a much better OS (be it Linux, BSD etc).
I find the effort behind ReactOS a bit counter intuitive. I doubt the devs are making it for their own use, so then maybe they're making it to convert people away from vanilla Windows. But if that's the end goal, why not just make Linux/BSD an easier destination for ex-Windows users?

The only way I can reconcile this for me, is if ReactOS devs actually do like Windows & the way Windows does things, quite a lot, but they want a Windows that is not tied to Microsoft. In which case, they must be a very rare jewel in the open source community.

@alyx It's the same reason wine exists. 🤷

@alyx @Zerglingman I assume their being rare is evidenced by how slow development on ReactOS was back when I was last paying attention to it.

@throwaway1
Wouldn't ReactOS be forced to have a lot of the same backwards compatibility though? Or do they have a cut point after which they don't plan on supporting older software?

@alyx my point was that backwards compatibility is an anchor Microsoft is willing to bear. They don't want to have it, but they have to. It is almost their entire value proposition to customers.
ReactOS is trying to capitalize on that so that M$ isn't the only game in town for the product that their backwards compatibility supplies.
Think of it this way: compatibility with existing Windows software is a value add. There is market demand for that. Only Microsoft was able to provide that, and then things like Wine and ReactOS came along. Now Microsoft has gratis competition for something where they used to have a monopoly. It's not very strong competition, but it's not nothing. From the user's perspective, running software written for Windows is a feature.

@throwaway1
>from the user's perspective, running software written for Windows is a feature
True. In Linux + Wine's case it's great, cause it adds to all the features Linux has.
But for ReactOS, what other features does it bring?

I get that backwards compatibility is a saddle, a burden an anchor Windows carries. My point is, is ReactOS going to carry the same burden to the same degree? In which case what advantage will it have over Windows, since the backwards compatibility will surely slow it down just like Windows? So what's the point of choosing it over Windows?

Or will it have a cut off point to it's backwards compatibility and be focused more on "current" software compatibility? In which case I can envision it having a significant speed increase over Windows, but it may never be a complete replacement, since some software may never work.

@alyx from ReactOS's perspective, compatibility with old Windows software isn't a matter of backwards compatibility. Like the end user, ReactOS sees that compatibility as a value add. Of course, it comes at a cost, but that cost is the cost of the entire product. Microsoft is bundling something they'd rather not need with something they want you to use, and ReactOS is providing the former without the latter.

@alyx there are three players in this game, and they each see this one aspect from their own perspectives
Microsoft sees it one way, and the user sees it another way, and ReactOS sees it a third way
"it" being "compatibility with old Windows software"

@throwaway1
So if I understand it right, ReactOS is aiming for old Windows software compatibility and not new software compatibility? Like a sort of Windows 98/XP? In which case, the following screenshot encompasses my reaction too.

@alyx in ReactOS's case, it seems to be the only feature, as far as I can tell

@throwaway1
In that case I wouldn't call Windows software compatibility a "value add" for ReactOS since it's the only value it seems to have. To be "value add" it should ADD to something else.

Wine is a value add for Linux.
And for Microsoft Windows, backwards compatibility, all the way to niche MS-DOS things is a value add to their modern APIs.

@alyx you're right, and I shouldn't have said it there; forgive my imprecision