Leaderboard

I respectfully disagree with you on that @98SE. XP might still be ok for most apps these days, but you can already see plenty of modern software not working on XP, and saying that it's no use developing a deep compatibility layer because what we have is good enough is not a very forward way of thinking (especially considering one of the main goals of the project is to extend the life of XP). Look at the Windows 9x line of OSs. One minute you have most programs working, the other XP is a minimum requirement. Keeping a 16 year old OS relevant is a daunting task, but efforts such as these are needed for the long run, if you care about it the way @Dibya does.

Obvious misunderstanding on jaclaz's part. Thanks for the chuckles. But neither of those two would be worth it anyhow though I did see XP kernel for 98SE. XP 32-bit just needs Intel USB 3.0 xHCI and extra memory support. Windows 7 64-bit just needs 2TB max memory and DX12 support and it will kill Windows 10. Don't stress yourself Dibya. XP doesn't need to run Windows 7 programs compatibility. Also no need to make every browser work on it. Firefox still works on XP and doesn't need Vista/W7 code. Waste of time and might create XP software compatibility problems later doing too much. It will be a nightmare trying to make it run W7 software on XP completely or always needing to patch each program to work and waste your energy. XP is good for all older XP software, just add Intel xHCI USB 3.0 and maybe the extra memory patch is all you need. I checked and I think XP can handle probably 262GB max. 192GB user memory / 70GB Ramdrive. Maybe it can go higher somehow on Win2K3 Server kernel.

Looking forward to releasing soon

in time...

I worry that one day there will be some killer application for Windows 10, that requires me to install it. I hope it will work in Wine by that point ...lol. I can't see myself changing my stance on windows 10.

I say 1/2 full... http://www.glass8.eu/beta Thanks BM, So far it's working very well