←back to thread

I have released a 69.0MB version of Windows 7 x86

(twitter.com)
186 points rvnx | 1 comments | 30 Oct 25 18:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.242s | source
Show context
thunderbong ◴[30 Oct 25 18:41 UTC] No.45763632[source]▶
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...

replies(3): >>45764147 #>>45766298 #>>45769741 #
happymellon ◴[30 Oct 25 19:22 UTC] No.45764147[source]▶
If it can't run Windows 7 software, is it really Windows 7?
replies(5): >>45764200 #>>45764296 #>>45764693 #>>45765247 #>>45766144 #
znpy ◴[30 Oct 25 19:32 UTC] No.45764296[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45764506 #
ZiiS ◴[30 Oct 25 19:51 UTC] No.45764506[source]▶
Linux is a kernel, Windows is an OS; I don't think the same limits apply. [A static init dose not a Distro make]
replies(4): >>45764594 #>>45764815 #>>45765622 #>>45766455 #
bragr ◴[30 Oct 25 20:16 UTC] No.45764815[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45764915 #
happymellon ◴[30 Oct 25 20:26 UTC] No.45764915[source]▶
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?

replies(3): >>45765095 #>>45765349 #>>45765926 #
exe34 ◴[30 Oct 25 20:44 UTC] No.45765095[source]▶
windows xp can run software for windows xp.
replies(2): >>45767531 #>>45767533 #
happymellon ◴[31 Oct 25 01:54 UTC] No.45767533[source]▶
Why? If Windows 7 doesnt require the ability to run Windows 7 software to be classed as Windows 7, does XP need to be able to run XP software?
replies(1): >>45769239 #
1. exe34 ◴[31 Oct 25 07:27 UTC] No.45769239[source]▶
Requirement and ability are different things.