virtual pc for carbon

[strobe]

Originally posted by Tigger
Oh yes, there are speed reasons NOT to use carbon.
Cocoa will be much better for a program as Virtual PC. There are programs that are faster in Cocoa than Carbon.

Head over to Omniweb, and look what they have to say about Quake III.
They admit if they would have done Quake III in Cocoa, it would be about 20% faster (Would have been a great effort though, I think, to port in Cocoa). [/B]

I think you mean OmniGroup and they never 'admit' to preferring Cocoa, they brag about using Cocoa (their whole business is based on Cocoa development.

The 20% speed gains have absolutely nothing to do with Cocoa. All Quake 3 does is use Cocoa to create the OpenGL port and gather mousing and keyboard events. Quake 3 will eventually use HID for that as well and thus can remove all Cocoa code as well.

There are no speed reasons to use Cocoa to setup an OpenGL port and gather mousing and keyboard events, you can do the same with Carbon events (not the event manager).

[strobe]

Originally posted by q And, the idea of windows and X sharing the same windowing environment has been around even longer! :-)

Try: http://www.winehq.com/about.shtml
[/B]

Yes, we all know about WINE. No, I don't want to port WINE to OS X.

X11-based apps don't have the same potential problems I listed because X11 has no UI uniformity whatsoever. Talk to an X11 user and use words like UI uniformity he'll roll his eyes and start bitching about "you want GUI? I got your GUI right here!". Of course they are always dead wrong.

[strobe]

There seems to be a bit of FUD going around so I thought I would cleat the air.

1) I wouldn't be surprised if Apple didn't release drivers to mount Fat32 and NTFS volumes. This is basically what the MacOS 9 control panel "File Exchange" does. You can mount windows floppies and SCSI disks.

Even if Apple didn't implement such drivers any 3rd party could.

The "\" character in unix, cocoa, carbon, and classic file paths would look like ":" in windows so that's no problem.

2) The task bar is a non-issue as the winstep hack shows. You can replace the task bar and use the Dock for the same functionality (if you can interpret the disassembled code which uses the Dock in this manner, like Classic.app or appletviewer).

3) There is no reason not to use Carbon functions like the drag manager.

As far as I can see you can't reliably change the menus in windows applications so they match OS X menus. Using ctrl-c to copy in some apps and command-c in others will fry my brain. It's hard enough when windows is in a seperate window, but if they shared the same windowing environment I would go crazy. Connectix already implements drag+drop between environments, perhaps they could hack windows to implement drag+drop text from windows so people wouldn't have to use the clipboard commands.

Windows and mac apps mix like oil and water. I don't see many advantages to this idea, and I see many pitfalls.

[macboy73]

I am calling a truce. Time to stop all the shouting. I think that we all have good points as to what needs to be done with VPC when ported to OS X, and we can all say we've contributed and call a stop to all the contradictions to each others opinions. We'll just have to see what Connectix does. They never fail to pull off a miracle.

[jove]

Hello,

I agree that there are many muscle memory pitfalls. But the argument is almost too personal.

The BIG plus of the shared window space is, well, space. Many moons ago the UI wizards at M$ (sarcasm) created MDI (multiple document interface). MDI's purposes were to (a) minimize window region calculations and (b) create an application menu. Somewhere in the Win32 documentation M$ actually admits that MDI was a bad idea, suggests not to use it, and says to use the single-doc architecture until "something better comes along." We are having trouble in our Windows products finding a place for non-document commands of our non-MDI application (i.e. where is the new command if no documents are open?).

VPC is an MDI application; a single window encloses all other windows in the process. If you have an Apple Cinema display - that is not a problem. On my iBook I am constantly moving, shading, and hiding VPC. I would be more than willing to switch gears to gain that space.

If Connectix is actually going through the great effort to create the “red box”, I would hope they give options for desktop emulation.

Jove

P.S.
I wouldn't exactly call the previous posts FUD :-> Misconceptions are not FUD unless the poster tries to instill a sense of, well, fear. I guess I'd be afraid too if my brain were liable to fry ;-)

[jove]

I'd actually have to agree with MacBoy #73 - even after he called me an idiot.

Jove

[strobe]

Microsoft admitting MDI was a bad idea is like Intel saying the 640k limit or the 4 partition limit was a bad idea. I don't think we really need to hear it from the horse's mouth |-)

You could change the OS X menu with the menu of the current Win32 window and perhaps use the command key in place of the control key when using hotkey combinations. This would help a bit now that I think about it.

[AdmiralAK]

Some of you are missing the point!
VPC is a hardware emulator of the PC.
The windowing scheme the way it's described here in previous posts CANNOT happen because VPC does not emulate the windows OS. A VPC HD Image doesnt JUST hold data, it holds the OS file as well. Without the OS in that VPC HD NOTHING happens!

And in case you have not noticed, you can do control-m with current versions of VPC to go full screen.

I think making VPC like classic is a VERY bad idea. The reason? Connectix will have to concentrate on ONLY one OS, and that OS is namelly windows. ALl the other OSs that can run under VPC (even though they might not be supported by connectix ) are going to die! No more BeOS, QNX, OS/2, Rhapsody, NeXTSTEP, OpenSTEP, etc etc etc on your mac.

I run these OSs on my mac and they are pretty good under VPC. Since they are not supported I have to be a bit ingenuine but if connectix makes the mistake by doing what softwindows is doing (or did) they have to make major upgrades each time a new windows OS, or update comes out. By simply focusing on the hardware , connectix allows for a broader base of OSs to be run on the mac, so you CAN run BeOS, you CAN run QNX, you CAN run OS/2 and almost any other OS you damn please.

While I like classic the way it is, meaning that it's seamlessly integrated with OS X, so you don't have to run classic under "emulation" in a window, I would not like this to be the case with windows, BeOS, or any other OS that I want to run on VPC in OS X.

Maybe I am alone, maybe not.
This is just my 2 cents.


Admiral