Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: WINE ~= Carbon?
Author: Jim Roepcke Posted: 4/29/1999; 9:23:04 AM Topic: Linux' wide open spaces Msg #: 5422 (In response to 5421) Prev/Next: 5421 / 5423
Sorry, but I still don't get it.
It still looks like you're saying that a Win16 developer either had to rewrite his application from scratch, or use Win32s?
Since that doesn't really make sense, you probably mean something else.
Sorry for being unclear.
All I'm trying to get at is for any major Windows developer to have a healthy FUTURE (past, say the end of 1996) they would have had to dump their strategy of selling a Win32s version of their product as the version for Win32 platforms, and do a real Win32 version. (unless your installed base was still on Win3.1, as many large IT shops were at the end of '96)
And doing a real Win32 version involves updating your app to use all of the new GUI controls in Win95 -- the Win95 common controls, etc. It involves a lot more than that too, yes I'm oversimplifying. (Add multithreading, updated printer support, etc etc etc)
There was a signification amount of rewriting going on to make that happen.
I wasn't saying that Win16 apps didn't run on Win95, nor that Win32s apps didn't run on Win3.1.
All things said, it was an admirable migration path, but it was from one API to a different API. (Similar function names, but not the same, and they used different (but similar) structures for many things) From everything I've read, the path to Carbon is less bumpy.
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:49:37 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.