Oh yes, there are speed reasons NOT to use carbon.Originally posted by strobe
There are no \\\\\\\'speed reasons\\\\\\\' not to use Carbon. They use Carbon to interface with drag+drop so I\\\\\\\'ll bet they will still link with Carbon.
And, the idea of windows and X sharing the same windowing environment has been around even longer!Originally posted by strobe
The idea of windows and OS X sharing the same windowing environment has been around for ages and I\\\'m still not sold if it would be productive. At least with Classic I can drag+drop between Carbon and Classic apps. I can also use the same command keys. I\\\'ve tried using Tenon\\\'s Xtools to run X11 apps but prefer a VNC window. It\\\'s just to confusing dealing with apps which aren\\\'t uniform in the same environment.
Win32 apps would have windows title bars and generally look like blue-gray crap (like they all do)
Are you an idiot? Look at how Virtual PC does things at it\'s current state. YOU CANNOT MOUNT THE WINDOWS C OR D VIRTUAL DRIVES ON THE MAC. YOU MUST BE LOOKING AT THEM IN A WINDOW FORM OR WITH A START MENU TO DOUBLE CLICK THEM. If you CAN\'T DO THIS UNDER MAC OS X and you DON\"T HAVE A START MENU, you CAN\"T LAUNCH APPLICATIONS. THINK!Originally posted by jove
You can launch Classic Apps, why not VPC apps? X, for better or worse, understands extensions. Double clicking an exe file on an Mac mounted volume can launch VPC. I beleive that happens now in 9 via File Exchange and Apple Events.
That would explain the boy in macboy73.Originally posted by macboy73
Are you an idiot?
You can\'t do this sort of thing currently, but there is no reason a kernel extension could not be written to do this. I can mount Toast images (just another FS in a file) on my Linux server and the server can also mount HFS, NTFS, FAT, FAT32, ISO9660, HPFS, UFS, NFS and ReiserFS volumes. This is all because of kernel extensions.Look at how Virtual PC does things at it\\\'s current state. YOU CANNOT MOUNT THE WINDOWS C OR D VIRTUAL DRIVES ON THE MAC.
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.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]
Yes, we all know about WINE. No, I don't want to port WINE to OS X.