r/windows • u/Scared_Food_1819 • 6d ago
Discussion Would anyone want an unofficial version of windows straight from the nt kernel?
28
u/Firespecialstar Windows 10 - Insider Beta Channel 6d ago
I'm losing some details... isn't windows based on NT already???
5
u/Savings_Art5944 Windows 10 6d ago
Yes, Windows 11 is on the 10th kernel.
12
u/CodenameFlux 6d ago edited 6d ago
Windows 11's kernel is the 53rd iteration, not the 10th.
I believe you are misled by the Windows version number. It consists of four parts.
<Major>.<Minor>.<Build>.<Update>
<Major> and <Minor> are decided by the marketing. There is no rhyme or reason to them. <Build> is the meaningful part. Developers use it to unambiguously decide the Windows version. For example, 9600 is Windows 8.1.
None of these say anything about the Windows kernel. You must study its history and count with your fingers.
12
u/Savings_Art5944 Windows 10 6d ago
[System.Environment]::OSVersion.Version
Technically, the NT kernel line started with Windows NT 3.1 (1993) and evolved through NT 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (Windows 2000), 5.1 (XP), 6.0 (Vista), 6.1 (7), 6.2 (8), and 6.3 (8.1). Windows 10/11 continues this continuous NT 6.x code evolution under the 10.0 label.
Microsoft bumped the internal version number from 6.3 (Windows 8.1) straight to 10.0 for Windows 10/11 purely to align marketing and internal APIs across Xbox, Windows, and Azure.
But you are right; the NT version is just marketing anyway. The Build number is more accurate.
3
u/CodenameFlux 6d ago edited 6d ago
It's not that simple. For example, Windows XP RTM came with two kernel images. By the time Windows XP SP2 was released, there were four:
ntoskrnl.exe,ntkrnlmp.exe,ntkrnlpa.exe, andntkrpamp.exe. The x64 edition of the OS added two more:ntkrla57.exeandntkrlapx.exe. There were also the Itanium brothers of the first two. Now, what was their version number?
- IA-32 versions of the first four:
- For the ordinary Windows XP, they reported version 5.1.2600.
- For Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, they reported 5.1.2700.
- For Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005, they reported version 5.1.2710.
- On the whole, the same kernel images could bear three different version numbers.
- Itanium version of the first two: They reported version 5.1.2600, even though they were different from their IA-32 brothers, which also reported 5.1.2600.
- x64 versions of the first two and the last two: They reported version 5.2.3790.
As you can see, you must count manually:
ntoskrnl.exe, IA-32ntoskrnl.exe, IA-64ntoskrnl.exe, x64ntkrnlmp.exe, IA-32ntkrnlmp.exe, IA-64ntkrnlmp.exe, x64ntkrnlpa.exe, IA-32ntkrpamp.exe, IA-32ntkrla57.exe, x64ntkrlapx.exe, x645
u/Savings_Art5944 Windows 10 6d ago
x64 xp was built on the 2003 server SP1 codebase.
3
u/CodenameFlux 6d ago
Yes. Hence, the 5.2 version number. However, Windows Server 2003 x64 had extra kernel images for NUMA nodes and asymmetric multiprocessing.
14
u/CatgirlBargains 6d ago
The value in windows is the userspace, so not at all. OTOH if they made a userspace wrapper that translated system calls to a Linux kernel and userspace (like wine but with first party support) it would be a game changer.
2
u/bogdan5844 5d ago
Isn't that what WSL1 was trying to be ?
9
u/CodenameFlux 5d ago
Not "trying to be". It is. Windows CAN run Linux apps, even GUI ones.
1
u/CatgirlBargains 5d ago
Which is the exact opposite of a wrapper to run windows user mode applications in linux.
1
u/CodenameFlux 2d ago
Your initial wording was "a userspace wrapper that translated system calls to a Linux kernel". That's the description of WSL1. You didn't specify that "system" means a Linux system and "Linux kernel" means the host kernel.
We're in r/Windows, so we assumed that "system" means a Windows system and "Linux kernel" means the guest kernel. I don't think a WINE alternative would become a game changer just because it is first-party. I don't care either. (Hint: If I cared, I wouldn't be in r/Windows.)
0
u/CatgirlBargains 2d ago edited 2d ago
Oh fuck off.
Like wine with first party support makes the context clear as day if you’re not an idiot. And wine with first party support would be incredible simply for having full DX12 support and all the modern APIs fully implemented so adobe and office work. Microsoft could sell it as a commercial product and make bank. Nobody gives a shit about the NT kernel, they just want their apps to work.
2
u/Darklumiere 5d ago
WSL1 redirected all Linux syscalls to NT kernel apis. WSL2 runs an actual Linux kernel.
1
u/CatgirlBargains 5d ago
Yes, WSL1 was the exact inverse of what I was describing. And WSL2 is just hyper-v.
2
0
8
u/_3point14_ 5d ago
that's supposed to be reactos, but that still is targeting nt 5.2 (server 2003, xp amd64)
5
u/CatgirlBargains 5d ago
ReactOS is explicitly not based on the NT kernel. It’s a clean room reimplementation of it.
8
u/Windows_NT_XP Windows 3.1 5d ago
hell no, unless you rebuild win32 from scratch with all of the dependent issues and such it wouldn't run a single windows application
7
u/tnoy 5d ago
It exists, depending on how you're defining it. If you're just talking about the user interface, there have been a few projects that replace the standard shell. It looks like even some of the Blackbox-style shells still work with Windows 11. It was more common in the XP and earlier era, but not enough people cared about it.
What do you mean by "straight from the NT kernel"? You could theoretically replace all the Win32 components and build something on top of ntdll.dll, but at that point it wouldn't be "Windows".
12
3
4
u/unfnknblvbl 5d ago
I'd be very curious to see what people could do with building a whole new OS on top of the NT kernel. Kind of like how Android isn't considered "Linux", even though it uses the Linux kernel. Or how PureDarwin is a completely different beast to MacOS.
5
u/ruemooooo 6d ago
reactOS?
1
u/GrahamBoss1975 4d ago
ReactOS is developed at a glacial pace. It pains me that I'll be dead before I can use it as my daily PC. :(
1
u/CodenameFlux 2d ago
ReactOS never aimed to become a full OS. It's a fun project. By the time the known universe ends, ReactOS will not have become a full OS.
4
u/technomlp 5d ago
As long as all the telemetry is gone and it’s 100% compatible with Windows executables (I couldn’t care less about the UWP apps), I’m down
1
u/CatgirlBargains 5d ago
If you have the Windows kernel and the Windows userspace then you just have Windows. You're describing Windows IoT builds.
2
2
2
2
2
3
u/Deep-Row-3988 5d ago
you can't run windows applications on the NT kernel, the NT kernel can load PE executable images, handle processes, threads, files, drivers, but it does not implement the win32 API, it is possible to make your own NT system though, but you'll have to write or port all of the applications from scratch, the NT API is very verbose, creating a process requires hundreds of lines of code of opening files, creating memory sections, creating threads, setting up thread contexts, setting up the process environment, that's why no one does it lol and talking with drivers through IOCTLs isn't fun either
Windows already is an OS based on the NT kernel, idk what "unofficial" means.
2
1
2
2
u/Revolutionary-Yak371 3d ago
Give us the ISO.
BTW, The ReactOS Project develops an open-source, hybrid NT-style kernel written from scratch via clean-room engineering to be binary compatible with Microsoft Windows drivers and applications.
The kernel is modeled after the Windows NT architecture (traditionally targeting the NT 5.2 family like Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, with early implementation steps moving into Windows NT 6.0 / Vista territory).
5
u/Green_Ad5186 6d ago
i don't . i use windows because everything works with it. the unofficial version wouldn't have that.
0
u/Scared_Food_1819 5d ago
That ain’t the point
1
u/CodenameFlux 2d ago
Oh, now you're implying there is a point to begin with? You initially said there was never any point in your whole discussion; rather, you were "just saying."
What matters to us is that the new OS must make our lives easier. Nothing else matters, whether it is the "point" or not.
1
3
u/Savings_Art5944 Windows 10 6d ago
You could probably replace the modern Windows shell with progman.exe or fileman.exe from Windows 3.11 and it would still work.
8
u/CatgirlBargains 6d ago
You could not because there is no WOW wrapper for 16-bit applications anymore. winfile.exe (not fileman.exe) has a 64-bit port but microsoft has not released the source for Program Manager.
Also both of those depend on a lot of the Windows userspace being present, the kernel exists at a far lower level
2
u/Savings_Art5944 Windows 10 6d ago
2
u/CatgirlBargains 5d ago
Wow that's an even sketchier way to do it than the actual easy solution I didn't mention which is to use the NT 3 program manager executable (native 32-bit) instead of the Windows 3 program manager (16-bit only)
But at that point you have the entire windows userspace to support them so you're not making a new OS using the NT kernel like you proposed.
4
2
2
u/Ryuu-Tenno 6d ago
if there's a way to make it open source so we can load up XP, Vista, 7, or 8, i think it'd be great
but, NT kernel would be a hard sell on that front
but having something like that would be cool in general imo, cause then we can just bypass all the nonsense that Microsoft's added into Windows over the years that everyone hates. Would cut down on bloat considerably for sure
1
u/RecommendationKey659 Windows 11 - Insider Dev Channel 5d ago
It's an interesting idea. I tried combining the available sources of the adaptation package, ReactOS, and the like, as well as partially disassembled kernel parts, and something worked. All that's left is to this was compiled... Your idea is really interesting and excites me. It would be interesting to have the option to launch optionally: win32/legacy x86-16,x86-32,x86-64 apps based on winAPI and win32, or run only WinUI2 UWP aoos, but with root access for them (e.g. do modern Windows phone). And do fully access on your PC and run anything and customisate it. But replacing all Windows services except the kernel with open source is very difficult.
2
1
u/bartwasneverthere 1d ago
I just want to install and run windows 7 or 8.1 with some kind of antivirus/malware protection. Hate Windows 11 especially after 22H2 anyway.
1
1
1
u/chutsetien 6d ago
I would. Or, more precisely: I’d like to see the NT kernel turned into a barely usable distribution. The closest example would be the Validation OS, but I’d like it to be more ‘usable’, like a minimal Debian installation with tty only, but with everything you need to configure it yourself from there. Currently the Validation OS is way too limited. (And yet Server Core is way too bloated.)
2
u/Deep-Row-3988 5d ago
looked up validation OS, it's not just the NT kernel, it has the win32 subsystem, or the whole windows userland, that's why it can run cmd.exe, which requires win32 libraries, win32 server for handling console stuff and sessions and other things
1
1
u/SweetNerevarine 6d ago
No thanks, I was lucky enough to born to a place with such magical windows that are double pane, insulated, tilt, swing and come with a shutter and net option.
0
0
0
u/that1guyrob 3d ago
We don't even want an official version of Windows on the NT kernel, but alas here we are.
0
0
-1
u/machacker89 5d ago
That's last good NT kernel was Windows XP
0
u/mda63 5d ago
XP's kernel really was not as good as what came with Vista onwards. The Server 2003 codebase is much superior.
0
u/machacker89 5d ago
I personally like Windows NT and Windows 2000
2
u/mda63 5d ago
I absolutely love 2000, but we've come a long way.
0
u/machacker89 5d ago
I still have a copy of Windows NT 4.0 workstation in storage. My last place it was destined for the garbage. And I asked my counterpart if I could have it since they were going to throw it away.
-8
u/Scared_Food_1819 6d ago
Just saying
2
u/Next_Sun_8198 Windows 11 - Insider Beta Channel 6d ago
ok
3
60
u/CodenameFlux 6d ago
What does that even mean?