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

Re: OS/2 Porting



alongton@clark.net (Andy Longton) wrote:

>CompExpr (compexpr@aol.com) wrote:
>: I just have to respond to all of the OS/2 people saying that an OS/2
port
>: would be the best thing for ARDI to do...

>Well, if Ardi is going to do a Windows port, than it is trivial to do an 
>OS/2 port from the Windows code.  Does this look like a good compromise?

My whole point in a nutshell is when you are overworked and understaffed
(as ARDI currently is...), you really shouldn't start to spread yourself
too thin.

Now, my impression of ARDI's strategy is that they aren't looking to take
anymore ports on until they can get 2.0 out the door, and more CA$H and
engineers IN the door.

At that point I'd have no objection to ANY port of Executor. I just wanted
the OS/2 people to realize that ARDI isn't able to do the OS/2 port now no
matter how trivial it seems to them.

We were lucky to get the sound support we now have (which wasn't planned
until after 2.0) because someone outside of ARDI wrote the code.

I'm pretty sure a Windows to OS/2 port of this type is NOT trivial or
fast. Emulation seems to me to be a very difficult undertaking, otherwise
there'd be a lot more emulators out there on the market.

- Al Hartman, Computer Expressions -


References: