Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:46:04 +0200 (EET)
From:      Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
To:        Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Cc:        hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.91.960226142710.4523B-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
In-Reply-To: <199602261106.MAA00533@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote:

[... Start deleted ...]
> > A point about which I must disagree... Win32 is not as good. Perhaps it 
> 
> "Win32 is not as good" - maybe, maybe not. You see best the effect
> of "what is good" and what is used widespread when you compare 
> L*n*x with FreeBSD with FreeBSD is standing for "what is good" :-)
> 

I know the problems with "very good, just not that widespead" and 
"ultimate crap - but people just like it". The thing between Win32 is not 
that much it's usefullness - just the fact that it makes programming 
things at least sensible (now where was that winmm32.dll? the way to make 
win31 use 32 bit data/programs before win32s came - most people probably 
even haven't heard about it as it was unuseable for programming).

But to bring FreeBSD to the desktop you need a bit more than just 
emulation - otherwise microsoft will be able to point and say - on the 
same hardware, FreeBSD runs all (counting, of course only windows 
programs) programs mmuch slowlier. And also have a thing to compare Win95 
against on the charts...

> Win32 is strong at existing software base, MFC, GUI, MSVC++ IDE, debuggers,
> bitmaps/bitblt.
> I don't like it particularly, I just see it's impact on the industry.
> It would be a snap to construct a GUI based FreeBSD installation dialog
> under MSVC/MFC, at least what the outer appearance is concerned.

Ever tried Tcl/Tk? You can do the same under FreeBSD/XFree86 in at least 
the same time + the tools are free.

> A Win32 implementation could be native and maybe server client based
> as well. I don't know how far off an emulation of the Win32 PE format
> (portable executable) under FreeBSD would be.

The implementation should be native. At least as I see it, all other ways 
will cause too much overhead... Anyways, at least one thing is sure - as 
soon as even one enhancement gets done, it will be in the next MS product 
and without any mentioning of the original authours.

> While we are at it, what can 'Willows' supply here?
> 
> 
> > will never be (just think about DOS  - it *did* become better over the 
> > time of it's existence). If the things go on as they are now, IMHO 
> > FreeBSD will have better SMP support than Win32...
> > 
> > Emulating another system is never as good as running in native mode, no 
> > matter how hard you try. How about making headers and libraries which 
> > would allow you to compile you win32 code for FreeBSD and X11 with little 
> > to no changes? It would allow all those shareware people list that their 
> > products are available for several platrorms, one of which is real unix :)
> > 
> > 	Sander.
> > 
> 
> --Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de
> 

	Sander



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960226142710.4523B-100000>