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

Re: Why a Windows 95 version?



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)