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.
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)
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.
Originally posted by macboy73
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.
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]