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

Re: Communication between app



On Sat, 8 Apr 1995 16:18:49 -0701 (PDT) you wrote:

>
>
>On Sat, 8 Apr 1995, Clifford Thomas Matthews wrote:
>
>> That was originally one of our goals for 2.0, however, that was one of
>> the goals that we had to back away from.  In order to get 2.0 out we
>> had to cut some things back and we decided with Windows '95 coming out
>> soon, it would make more sense to work on a native Windows '95 port as
>> soon as 2.0 ships than to delay 2.0 to get cut and paste to work with
>> Windows 3.x.
>
>	I think there are some nice routines in newer Win32 
>implementations (NT 3.5x and Windows 95) which should make it pretty fast 
>to copy the Executor bitmaps to the screen.  WinG might be one way, and 
>I'm sure there's another API in NT 3.5 which does the same thing.
>
>	Depending on how difficult the port away from gcc would be, you 
>might want to consider working on this port even before 2.0 comes out and 
>possibly even largely replace the DOS release with it since it would not 
>have as many memory management problems.  (Especially if it can support 
>Win32s, Windows 95, and NT 3.5 - this would allow it to be used on a large 
>number of current machines.)
>
>	- Chad
>
>> 
>> 	--Cliff
>> 	ctm@ardi.com
>> 
>> 
Also, 
	I still hope that a native OS/2 version is still being considered. It
should also not be too hard to develop both a Win32 and an OS/2
version since there are some excellent conversion tools available. The
advantages over DOS are significant such as better GFX API's, a sound
standard that could be accessed by Executor, faster file systems (on
OS/2), etc.
	Would it be possible/advantageous to make executor internally
multi-threaded? Code recompilation on one thread, gfx on one and disk
IO on another?

	I already love tinkering with my system, gimme one more thing to
tinker with...

Later.


Baskin
UT Austin
Team OS/2


Follow-Ups: