[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Win 95/NT Executor
marciano@ecu.stanford.edu (Marciano Siniscalchi) wrote:
>> Larry> So does this mean that we can expect a
>> Larry> port in much less time than the Dos version took to create?
>>
>>Certainly. In addition to the point you bring up, there were other
>>things that contributed to the DOS version's gestation period: writing
>>the synthetic CPU and retooling ROMlib to handle little-endian
>>storage, for instance. Those won't have to be redone.
>>
>OK, I couldn't resist. How about this: emulate Mac programs *only*, i.e.
>forget about the Finder, etc., and rely on the Win95 shell instead.
>Ideally, one would double-click on a Mac application existing as a file,
>or set of files, in the DOS file system (with long file names), and
>Executor would be invoked, providing (1) 680x0 emulation, and (2)
>rerouting / execution of Toolbox calls. Sort of like OS/2's "seamless
>Windows" integration.
>Kinda cool... OK, maybe I *am* dreaming...
>Good job Cliff & Co.!
>Marciano
My personal dream for Executor would be for it to be ported to a full
native-OS/2 application, with WPS/SOM integration, and possibly a
Presentation Manager replacement. This would allow you to have a
Mac-like toolbar (on the top or bottom) for basically a mac interface
that also runs Dos/Win3.1/OS2 and Mac programs seemlessly from one
shell. After all, OS/2 *is* object-oriented already.. Drive objects,
under OS/2, are already handled similar to Mac drives... Still be able
to drag-n-drop with automatic conversion of documents between the
proper PC & Mac formats, etc.
I don't think there's a chance in hell of this happening, at least,
until ARDI gets that $20 million grant from IBM <Grin>, but you have
to admit it would be cool.
Just my $0.02(US).
-Steve Sinnott
Napalm@ibm.net
"Hey! I found how to stabilize Windows 95! Just add 'Win_95_bugs=OFF' to the msdos.sys file!"
References: