Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:49:33 +1200
From: Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject: Re: Allegro & DirectX - please read
To: Calvin French <frenchc AT cadvision DOT com>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Reply-to: billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz
Message-id: <335A815D.1B24@blackmagic.tait.co.nz>
Organization: Tait Electronics NZ
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <33527a80 DOT 36537095 AT news DOT ping DOT be> <5j163q$2okc AT elmo DOT cadvision DOT com>
Precedence: bulk

Calvin French wrote:
> 
> In a last defence of my original intent to use OEM-shipped DirectX
> drivers, let me at least state how *I* would have designed DirectX.
> Then maybe any residual misclarity might be cleared up. I would have
> designed it that the Drivers were as simple as possible: that they
> contained functions much like blit(), stretch_sprite() etc. in
> Allegro. This made the most sense. Then, the DirectX .dll's, MADE BY

I would have to agree with this (and the other comments I've snipped), 
as I have yet to see a vxd that makes ANY DIRECT calls to windows dll's 
(I think I saw a couple that made indirect calls, but via a callback).
My understanding of windows vxd's is that they know NOTHING about
kernel.exe,
gdi, user... (except the main core of vxd's which form the 'real'
operating 
system (shell?) of windows.  Assuming the DirectX drivers are vxd's, the
only
functions that should have to be emulated are the resource management
(memory, 
interrupts etc), and the INT 20h dynamic linking mechanism (not too
difficult).
There may be a few others, but I have no idea what they would be without
looking
at a DirectX driver.

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness.