Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:17:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org>
To: "'OpenDOS newsgroup'" <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: [opendos] Re: [opendos-developer] OS advancements and old technology:  My viewpoint.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970205144009.4560H-100000@capslock.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970205220222.27475A-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

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