I have released a 69.0MB version of Windows 7 x86

From the thread [0] -

> This was more of a fun proof of concept rather than something usable. Virtually nothing can run due to critical missing files such as common dialog boxes and common controls.

[0]: https://x.com/XenoPanther/status/1983579460906487835?t=7jLSz...

If it can't run Windows 7 software, is it really Windows 7?

Yes. If you compile just enough linux kernel to just boot and launch a statically compiled init, it’s still linux.

Similarly, this is still windows 7.

Linux is a kernel, Windows is an OS; I don't think the same limits apply. [A static init dose not a Distro make]

The post you are replying separately mentioned both the "linux kernel" and "linux" so the "Linux is a kernel" pedantry feels misplaced here.

Besides this old debate is pretty silly because I doubt anyone could propose (and get a majority of us to agree on) a formal definition of an operating system that would allow us to unambiguously say "that's an OS competent", "that's an OS", and "that's just software that ships with the OS" across a suite of OS's.

Disagree.

"Windows 7" brings a lot of connotations, including the ability to run Windows 7 software. Without that what makes it different to Windows XP?

>"Windows 7" brings a lot of connotations

Sure but are those connotation consistent across people (this thread would tend to say no)? If not, that is essentially the core of my argument that nobody agrees on what "OS" means.

Both can be true: a majority of people agree that the is a difference between a 69MB boot and Windows 7; whilst no two people agreeing exactly where to draw that line.