[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Let's get System 7.x on top!
On , holmes@gorilla.nbn.com (Tim Holmes) wrote:
>Clifford T. Matthews (ctm@ardi.com) wrote:
>: >>>>> "Craig" == Craig Olinsky <crolinsky@vassar.edu> writes:
>
>: Craig> Actually, in some ways the a Windows 32-bit port would
>: Craig> facilitate ARDI devoting more time to work on System 7.xx
>: Craig> support in that the use of Windows APIs for hardware
>: Craig> independence would reduce their time spent on issues of:
>: Craig> system configuration, graphics card drivers/support (well,
>: Craig> they are already using univbe, but...), sound card, SCSI
>: Craig> drive/CD-ROM support, etc. that they have with E/D. There
>: Craig> also is an opportunity for speed gains using WinG/DirectX,
>: Craig> better use of memory, etc.
>
>: Craig has hit the nail on the head. We spend ridiculously large
>: amounts of time now messing around with DOS intracacies that we can
>: avoid when we have a more advanced OS backing us up. In all liklihood
>: we won't add support for things like networking to the DOS specific
>: version and that will save us time because we'll be able to add
>: support for networking to the other versions *much* quicker.
And also remember that a Win 32 port would make it possible to run more than
one Mac app at a time. And possibly one day have interaction between them
such as drag and drop and many other goodies. I say a Win 32 port is the way
to go. Let Microsoft handle all the I/O and peripherals that way ARDI can
concentrate on rock solid Mac OS emulation.
If a good port comes along I wouldn't be suprised if some very tempting offers
from Microsoft come Ardi's way. They are always looking for established
technologies they can take credit for. I'm not sure if this would be good or
bad but I can picture the commercial.
"Your favorite Macintosh Applications on your PC.......Now there are no
limits.........Microsoft"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Larry Velez
lev1673@is2.nyu.edu
Follow-Ups:
References: