home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- > I think it would be more like photoshop not a full VM, in that only
- > lightwave would see it. This would also mean that everyone (WinNT, Amiga,
- > SGI, etc.) would have the same way to solve the problem, this would help
-
- I suppose so... but I still think it is better just to let the OS do it.
- WinNT, Amiga, and SGI all have VM already. Perhaps for an image
- processor like ImageFX or Photoshop it makes some sense since they can
- do VM customized for their particular use, which is very well defined.
- But it isn't so clear to me that a custom VM in LW would be better.
-
- (BTW, I don't know about Photoshop, but the VM in ImageFX isn't "real"
- virtual memory, in the sense that it doesn't use the MMU for address
- translation. Instead, it simply has an internal API which knows how to
- read parts of buffers from disk or memory as necessary. So it won't
- conflict with MMU style VM, and in fact they may both be useful at
- once. If LW did something like that, I suppose I could live with it).
-
- > > effort improving other things instead of reinventing the wheel (see
- > > also: file requesters :-). Also, there is always the risk of their
-
- > Would the Amiga file requesters show up on WinNT or SGI??
-
- No, but presumably NT and SGI also have system-standard file requesters.
- I think it is better for all apps on a particular platform to use the
- same requester, than for the same app to use the same requester across
- multiple platforms. The advantage of using the system-standard file
- requesters such as ASL is that they can be replaced by the user with a
- user specified one by using SetFunction() (or the equivalent on other
- OS's). If the application hard codes one, you're pretty much stuck with
- it whether you like it or not, not to mention that its different from
- what all your other apps use.
-
- In any case, the 3.0 ASL file requester is better than any other one
- I've ever seen, so its in my best interest if apps use it :-)
-
- Anyway, I guess my point is just that instead of re-inventing things
- which already exist, Newtek might as well just use them, and spend their
- time adding cool new rendering or modeling features. Instead of making
- LW be able to directly write JPEG files, for example, just run a
- conversion program in the background to convert frames as they appear.
- All three OSs above can do that sort of thing quite well. (BTW, lense
- flare is a different argument since LW knows things about them that a
- post processor won't unless you tell it).
-
- Just MHO,
-
- - steve
-
-