Dear All
Should we avoid the arguments as following:
> The problem of supporting Windows has more to do with MicroSoft not
> being interested in supporting crossplatform applications, in contrast it
> seems they do everything to prevent this, as you can easily see by reading
> the articles on LinuxToday(http://www.linuxtoday.com). As you may know,
> even many applications written for Windows 95 donīt run on WinNT,
> and applications written for WinNT often cannot be used with Win98.
As a person slightly involved in crossplatform applications business I have
to
say such sort of the clains mislead us and they are no use for the
technical discussions a
nd forums like "roottalk".
There is no such problem like supporting "Windows". There is the problem of
providing the cross platform applications.
Try to replace the words "Windows", "MicroSoft" and "crossplatform " above
with
"Linux" , "UNIX" "Windows"
"MAC", "Apple" "Linux"
"VMS" , "Digital" "UNIX"
etc. Have a fun.
To be more specific:
If some application can be run under Win 95 and can not be run under Win NT
this means
this is NOT Win32 application.
Very likely this is MS DOS applications or the "plain" IBM PC application.
"Plain PC" means the application uses the direct access to some hardware
registers including
the main memory registers and video RAM.
Apparently running such sort of application is forbiden by the "normal
operating system"
within multi tasking multi-user environment.
If you can not use some WinNT application on Win95 this very likely means
the application relies
on multiuser protection and multitasking capability of WinNT.
I hope you agree WinNT and Win95 are different operating systems.
But let me ask you what does this mean ?
> To give you an example from another great multiplatform public domain
> project, namely the statistics package "R":
> (http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/R-project/welcome.html)
> This project, too, has huge problems supporting Windows, as you can see
> from the following mail of one of the main R developers taken from the
> R-help list (r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch):
What did this prove ? Any project oriented to some specific OS must meet
huge/small/none
problem supporting another platform.
What about the original topic, Someone had expressed his concern about the
concrete technical
implementation ( and it was not about ROOT in general ). The expected answer
to be fruitful
should be the technical rather "ideologycal" one the claim above looks like.
For exampple it was proved many time the Windows application like ROOT must
be multi-threaded.
Of course such constrain doesn't make the application desing more simple and
cheap.
>From the Fons's reply I understood the coming Win32 version of ROOT will be
single-thread.
Does this mean the author of the new Win32 layer thinks one may neglect the
multi-thread issue ?
What about ROOT GUI layer vs Qt (or another toolkit). Event though I did
rate the Qt v.3 as
a great toolkit that can be used by ROOT project that was said about version
3. THat was released
three weeks ago. Of course 7 years ago when the current ROOT GUI (TVirtualX
class) was designed
there was nothing like Qt v.3 around.
Thank you
My best regards, Valeri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:51:05 MET