[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Port to what? was: Re: executor-digest V1 #301



> 
> >From: Brian Hawley <bhawley@luc.edu>
> >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:45:20 -0500
> >Subject: Long filenames
> >
> >Hi there.
> >
> >Does Executor support long filenames on VFAT drives under Win95? I would
> >think that the filenames used by Mac files would map well to the Win95 ones,
> >and this would simplify things quite a bit for me.
> >
> >Executor seems to work well for me so far. If I have any major problems I'll
> >be sure to mention them.
> 
> Oh, BTW- I think IBM made some way to let DOS apps under OS/2 access long
> filenames, I'd love to see this under Executor, or perhaps (even better) let Executor sit
> rawly in the HPFS file system, and merge the data and resurce forks into one file, letting
> Executor seperate them for the Mac programs...?
> 

Personally, I can't believe that Windows95 support [is going to come /would be]
before OS/2, afterall there is no native gcc for 95, but we've got two
complete followings of gcc for OS/2 ( EMX and gcc/2 )

I think porting Executor to a native OS/2 VIO app would take less than a
week with EMX. And a really *flashy* ( threaded, DIVE, etc )
executable could be had within a month.

Something to think about...

 Sheesh.. I'd even do the port if you all ( ARDI ) would like 8-)

		Just some thoughts.
 
			-- Charles Hunter

	



Follow-Ups: References: