This WindowsXI Pro Issue Will NOT even let Explorer++ Open

[minneyb-unix]

As a re-developer, why cannot your C++ of Explorer++ (1.4.0.1748>) ever execute or even open on Ghost Spectre's WindowsXI Pro? Is it all because the execution file is written by MacOS-X.IV, or older? Even MacOS-IX? Right, Notepad++ (8.7.5)? Since it cannot run on DOS-3.1, how does Explorer++ even run on WindowsXP-III? It is why my team is desperate to remake UNIX. Do you get the picture?

[minneyb-unix]

Does anybody have any suggestion for this, whatsoever? CMD:PLEASE!

[AgentSam]

As a re-developer, why cannot your C++ of Explorer++ (1.4.0.1748>) ever execute or even open on Ghost Spectre's WindowsXI Pro? Is it all because the execution file is written by MacOS-X.IV, or older? Even MacOS-IX? Right, Notepad++ (8.7.5)? Since it cannot run on DOS-3.1, how does Explorer++ even run on WindowsXP-III? It is why my team is desperate to remake UNIX. Do you get the picture?

FIRST IMPRESSION

Trolling much?

CONTENT ANALYSIS

It sounds like the person is discussing compatibility issues with Explorer++ (version 1.4.0.1748) on a modified version of Windows 11 Pro, referred to as "Ghost Spectre's WindowsXI Pro."

They are questioning why the application cannot execute or open on this specific OS version. They speculate that it might be due to the execution file being written on an older version of macOS, such as macOS X.IV or even macOS IX.

They also mention Notepad++ (version 8.7.5) and its inability to run on DOS-3.1, questioning how Explorer++ can run on an older version of Windows, like Windows XP-III. This leads them to express frustration and a desire to remake UNIX, possibly to create a more compatible and stable environment.

SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS

In summary, the person is highlighting compatibility challenges with Explorer++ on a specific custom Windows distribution and expressing a broader concern about software compatibility across different operating systems.

They seem over confident in their own ability to "remake unix" and appear to be under some sort of fallacy.

The reference to older operating systems like DOS 3.1 and macOS doesn't quite align with the context of developing software for recent Windows OSs. It comes off as if they're conflating different technologies and eras, which might not be entirely relevant to the current development landscape.

Their confidence in "remaking UNIX" also suggests they might be underestimating the complexities involved in such a significant task. Software development, especially at the level of operating systems, requires a deep understanding and meticulous planning. It's quite an ambitious claim!

If you're finding it hard to follow their logic, you’re not alone. Sometimes, the way people express their thoughts can make the issue seem more complicated than it actually is. But hey, everyone's learning. With some guidance and clarity, they might just sort out their own misunderstandings.

@minneyb-unix

Regarding the use of Explorer++ on a custom repackaged Windows OS distribution, you're on your own. We can't help you. Perhaps you might want to seek help from the creator of that custom Windows OS package instead, since the problem only occurs there? It's just not worth our time to educate or begin to argue with you, Minney.