Received: from bos1a.delphi.com (bos1a.delphi.com [192.80.63.1]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA20855 for <executor@nacm.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:39:04 -0700
Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-9 #10880)
id <01HS0JPMKGW095Q3WT@delphi.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rich <RSTEINER@DELPHI.COM>
Subject: Re: Why a Windows 95 version?
To: executor@nacm.com
Message-id: <01HS0JPMKGW295Q3WT@delphi.com>
X-VMS-To: INTERNET"executor@nacm.com"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com
Precedence: bulk
dan_g@ix.netcom.com (Dan Guisinger) writes:
> But Windows 3.1 can not be used because it doesn't use a flat memory model.
XMS *is* a flat memory model. That's one of the features that distinguishes
it from silly paged memory models like EMS. Perhaps a more sophisticated
memory model like DPMI is required, tho -- that's what E/D uses, and I don't
have a good feel for Executor's requirements insofar as memory management is
concerned. You could be right, since I think DPMI has problems under Win 3x.
Windows 95 might be the most commonly-used OS overall in a year, yes, mostly
due to OEM bundling, but the real question is "how many potential Executor
users will be likely to use Windows 95"? That's a tough call, I guess, and
it certainly merits consideration, but most of the folks I know who are the
most likely to want Executor are mostly running Linux or OS/2 now because
those are also cutting-edge toys to play with.
I just don't see Windows 95 as being a cutting-edge platform. And I don't
see the Windows 3.x market vanishing immediately, either.
Oh well. I'm bordering on advocacy here (my apologies), and ARDI has a lot
more important things to concentrate on (like v1.99n and 1.99o <grin>). I
can't wait for v1.99n's release. Has anyone gotten Cyclone to work on E/D??
-Rich Steiner (rsteiner@skypoint.com is my perferred e-mail address)