>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.
*GRRRR* No! :) OS/2 users, X users, and those remaining of the DOS
faithful ... we will not be happy with a W95 shell.
-------------------------------------------
Pat Gunn, a SLBBS Sysop and member of TeamOS/2,
User of NT, OS/2, PC-DOS7, Linux, etc. My homepage is http://ftp.apk.net/~qc
Fan of Executor, a Mac emulator for DOS, Linux, and NeXT (see http://www.ardi.com)
And then came the godly NEKO, a flying first strike 32/32 black creature
-------------------------------------------
You say you use NT? I'm sure you're aware that NT is getting the new look, so Executor would then integrate with NT (You can download the shell for 3.51). Also, integrating with the shell allows for seamless integration. See, allot of people who use Mac software are teachers and students, and from my experience, the tend to be computer-illiterate. It would be too confusing for them to try to learn multiple interfaces. Also, integrating with the shell allows applications for Windows to read Mac diskettes (Using an Installable File System, again, to be in WinNT 4.0 and later). Those are just some of the advantages of integrating with the shell.
I'm sure you know the other advantages for running on the Windows desktop, such as Windows<==> Mac clipboard, Mac windows on the same desktop, and seamless multitasking.
I guess for those of you who actually **want** the Mac Finder or ARDIs Browser running under a GUI version of Executor, I guess you could have ARDI set it as an option, just have them switch the command line switches (-nobrowser to -browser).
