home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- marciano@ecu.stanford.edu (Marciano Siniscalchi) wrote:
-
- >> Larry> So does this mean that we can expect a
- >> Larry> port in much less time than the Dos version took to create?
- >>
- >>Certainly. In addition to the point you bring up, there were other
- >>things that contributed to the DOS version's gestation period: writing
- >>the synthetic CPU and retooling ROMlib to handle little-endian
- >>storage, for instance. Those won't have to be redone.
- >>
-
- >OK, I couldn't resist. How about this: emulate Mac programs *only*, i.e.
- >forget about the Finder, etc., and rely on the Win95 shell instead.
- >Ideally, one would double-click on a Mac application existing as a file,
- >or set of files, in the DOS file system (with long file names), and
- >Executor would be invoked, providing (1) 680x0 emulation, and (2)
- >rerouting / execution of Toolbox calls. Sort of like OS/2's "seamless
- >Windows" integration.
-
- >Kinda cool... OK, maybe I *am* dreaming...
-
- >Good job Cliff & Co.!
- >Marciano
-
- My personal dream for Executor would be for it to be ported to a full
- native-OS/2 application, with WPS/SOM integration, and possibly a
- Presentation Manager replacement. This would allow you to have a
- Mac-like toolbar (on the top or bottom) for basically a mac interface
- that also runs Dos/Win3.1/OS2 and Mac programs seemlessly from one
- shell. After all, OS/2 *is* object-oriented already.. Drive objects,
- under OS/2, are already handled similar to Mac drives... Still be able
- to drag-n-drop with automatic conversion of documents between the
- proper PC & Mac formats, etc.
-
- I don't think there's a chance in hell of this happening, at least,
- until ARDI gets that $20 million grant from IBM <Grin>, but you have
- to admit it would be cool.
-
- Just my $0.02(US).
-
-
-
- -Steve Sinnott
- Napalm@ibm.net
- "Hey! I found how to stabilize Windows 95! Just add 'Win_95_bugs=OFF' to the msdos.sys file!"
-
-
-