Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/05/23:32:34
Watch the gaskets now. ;)
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca wrote:
> I just read a few letters about NEW programs not working on "such
> and such" a computer, where "such and such" is either a
Here, hear! I've already figured out that given enough resource, you
_can_ create beautifull software. Lets' take ray tracing programs for
example. Until a few years ago, the only means to create a surrealistic
picture was to buy a Cray and some very _expen$ive_ software. Now, many
people have a machine to do it at home. (might take a while to render on
some of the machines out there, besides the point)
> You would basically be adding a "Hardware independence layer" in
> all of the *applications*, instead of putting one in the *OS*
That's a prime reason to not bind input/output routines into the program
itself but to make use of user bindable .DRV files.
> deviate from the accepted standard, the IBM-PC. (Ever use a
> Tandy? Prime example. I've got one!)
Hey! I resemble that remark! (which model is yours?) Here is a machine
which several companies _have_ created bindable drivers for use with their
program, thanks to these companies, I can use TGA, 640x200x16 mode. You'd
be surprised at the detail you see.
> For example, if I write a new DOS graphical program (VGA
> 640x480), you can hardly *expect* me to support CGA on a Tandy
Only if you decide to make the program flexible enough to support an user
selectable driver. (and it's TGA)
> systems. Every program has a target platform, as well as MINIMUM
> system requirements, and also RECOMMENDED system requirements.
And even I will agree with that, I can't use the rendering software with
the Tandy, so realizing that, I don't even bother to complain. I will
state: 'Would be nice.', but even that, it'd probably take a month or two
to render even a modest sized picture. =)
> The whole point of this posting is to try and make people who are
> using older equipment understand WHY new programs may NOT work on
I'll have to point this out though, many people have purchased machines
which they were assured were '%100 IBM compatible.', and finding out just
how badly they were burned.
Why do you think we have such sweet nicknames for certain manufacturer's?
(I'd quote a few, but I wouldn't want to start the program below.)
flames > /dev/null
- Raw text -