CompuServe Messages

Rob, A very interesting message! In all seriosness, I have a couple of questions for you. 1. Just 'cuz Win95 isn't out doesn't mean you can't write apps for it? It doesn't? How can I interface with Win95 if I don't know what the "hooks" are yet? Are there books out on this yet? 2. You haven't seen any flat-32-bit DOS apps yet? Hmm … many of the ASM'94 demos use Tran's PMODE, which (I believe) does kick the computer into a flat 32-bit mode. I don't know how else you could get a 4GB segment. Both Verses and The Real Thing use this (I'm pretty sure) and several others give thanks to Tran also. 3. You're definitely right about true 32-bits being faster than the DPMI-type 24-bit stuff. But it was the original Windows that led to this bastardization in the first place. Now they're finally "fixing" it in Win95. So I hear. If it ever comes out. I'm sure it will, but then I was sure Microsoft would really get OS/2 working, too <g>. 4. Although you may be right about being able to run 320x200x256 mode under windows by telling it to "get out of the way" and then doing whatever you want to, I still suggest that DOS is a better environment for this. Because you don't HAVE to have the code in your program that tells Windows to "get out of the way", nor the code that nicely restores it back to its previous operating mode when you're done. 5. The entire idea of Windows is to be portable (at least so I've heard) across video cards, audio cards, printers, mice, etc. The moment I tell Windows to get out of my way and handle all the video myself, I've just done away with the main purpose for Window's existence. In that case, why bother ever calling up Windows at all? Except of course that if I'm running Win95, I won't have a choice, since I'll only be able to run DOS under emulation. What a clever way for Microsoft to show that their Win95 apps will run faster that DOS apps! That Bill Gates, what a clever fellow. <g>