[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: FW: Let's get System 7.x on top!
"Dan Guisinger" <dan_g@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Here I'll explain the reasons for a port to Win95/NT and OS/2.
> (Note, I don't use OS/2, and don't know how easy the features that
> windows can handle can be put into OS/2 since they aren't designed the
> same since 1991)
> 1) IFS -- Windows 95 and NT 4.0 (Not sure about 3.51) use an
> Installable File System. This was, ALL programs can read from Mac disks.
Windows95 uses a poor and incomplete implementation of IFS. I am not
sure about Windows NT, but I believe that you are correct about it.
IFS drivers cannot as yet support Macintosh format drives because of
the way IFS detects which partitions are handled by IFS drivers. This
should be fixed in the next version of IFS.
> 2) Very Large API -- Both OS/2 and Win32 have thousands of API calls
> that hide hardware from the programmers, making the development time
> decrease.
That can be a mixed blessing.
> 5) Fonts -- Windows and OS/2 support True Type Fonts. ARDIs generic
> system doesn't. What could they do? Route calls thru to Windows or
> OS/2. I don't even know if they can do it any other way. Microsoft and
> IBM had to licence TTF code. It could be that its a patented technoligy
> or something, and ARDI would have to licence it too (Correct me if I'm
> wrong)
You're wrong. (I think.) OS/2 does not use TrueType fonts yet. I
beleive that it uses Adobe Type 1 fonts or something similar.
Executor should use whatever font support is available in the platform
it is running on. It should use Type 1 fonts in OS/2, TrueType in
Windows, X fonts in X, etc. These are usually handled by some form of
API functions, which should make things easier.
> 6) Control Panels -- The way Windows uses control panels is this. A
> singe CPL file can represent many different applets. ARDI can make a CPL
> file that searches for Mac control panels and then displays icons for
> those, making settings for both the PC and Mac work together seamlessly.
Eh. I don't think I would do that. OS/2 and Windows handle control
panels differently (Windows uses a DLL renamed to .CPL with a wierd
callback handler gizmo-thingee that I never understood and OS/2 uses a
neat SOM object) and Linux/Unix has no control panels. I've never
used a NeXT.
> 7) Multitasking -- OS/2 and Win32 are thru multitasking and
> multithreading. This means ARDI doesn't exactly have to spend too much
> time on getting the system to multitask.
True, same for Linux and NeXT.
> 8) Same Desktop -- All programs can run on the same desktop. Windows,
> OS/2, and Mac (Especally true with OS/2 for Windows or OS/2 with
> Windows)
I suppose that this is the GOAL. (-:
> 9) DirectX. Video/Sound/Networking are all much **FASTER** when using
> these APIs, thus improving preformance to or above a DOS machine with the
> same hardware.
Using VESA is fine for me. Direct screen write is always faster than
using a software API. (VESA is usually implemented in hardware.)
> 10) Virtual Memory -- Executor currently has the limit of NO virtual
> memory. Win95 has an dynamic swap file that grows/shrinks with use.
> Executor can report the maxinum amount of memory a 68040 (and in
> the future, PPC) can handle, and thus no memory problems.
Same for Linux, OS/2, etc.
> I also saw mentioned that with Win95 you need more than 8 megs ram.
> That may be true, but by the time Executor/95 comes out, 8 megs of ram
> will cost around $80! There is a shift in the market that is making all
> RAM prices drop this year, its already started, and will finish later
> this year.
Whoa. That's more than a 50% drop. I don't think that will happen in
the next year.
> And to that mention of using a 386. Give me a break. Who would
> seriously try emulating anything as complicated as a Mac (68040) on such
> a slow machine. Besides for one person, I don't know any body with one
I think that you are making the terrible, horrible assumption that
everyone is using a WIMP (Windows-Intel-Microsoft Pc) machine.
Although most people do, there are lots of people who will be running
on older systems on DOS, OS/2 for PowerPC, or whatever.
Executor should be very popular at schools where there is a need to
run Mac and DOS applications on older equiptment.
>And to say Win95 runs on top of DOS. You don't know much about the system
>your insulting do you?
DOS is wonderful. Whether you're running DOS, Windows, OS/2, Linux,
etc, you can run DOS applications. If you have an emulator, you can
run DOS applications on Macs, Amigas, and many other platforms. This
just isn't true for Windows95. I like DOS. And there are many people
who prefer DOS to Windows.
>Windows. If you want speed on a P6, get NT. Don't complain here (Notice,
>I haven't complained about
DOS on a 486 would probably be faster. (-: Less overhead.
>any OS. I think they all have their advantages and disadvantages. And I
>don't want to see any OS wars
>in reply to this).
I think the problem is that you assume that everyone has a Pentium
runing Windows, which is very far from the truth.
-----------------------------------------
Tobin Fricke
Mission Viejo High School
fricke@exo.com
Follow-Ups:
References: