1. Re: QNX and Gaming
For that matter, couldn't you use DJGPP since you've been using GCC for the
Linux port anyway??
Also, as for W2K, all the trades say that there is supposed to be one more
interim release á la Win9x.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: QNX and Gaming
>It's true that there won't be any more releases
>of WATCOM C/C++. I got a letter in the mail
>a few days ago. I don't think this matters much as
>far as Euphoria for DOS32 is concerned. DOS is
>not evolving anymore, so there's no need to keep
>improving an already very mature compiler for DOS.
>That doesn't mean that Euphoria for DOS32 can't
>improve greatly in the future.
>
>Euphoria for WIN32, which also uses WATCOM,
>could easily be ported to Microsoft C/C++ if that
>ever became desirable. So far, I don't see any need
>for it.
>
>The port of Euphoria to Linux has demonstrated
>that Euphoria is not tied to any one compiler
>or operating system.
>
>> Windows2000 (whichever version) has been publicly
>> stated as not being DOS capable
>
>I'm sure Microsoft would dearly love to get rid of DOS.
>They aren't making any money selling DOS software,
>and average people are able to write and maintain
>their own DOS programs, which allow them to
>avoid buying big expensive Windows apps from Microsoft.
>Also, Microsoft does not have a total monopoly on DOS,
>the way they do on Windows.
>
>I think Microsoft is just floating this "no-DOS" idea to test
>the waters, and to scare people away from DOS. When
>the crunch comes, I bet they'll cave in to public demand
>and the watchful eye of the anti-trust regulators, and
>include DOS.
>
>A few years ago I remember hearing reports in
>the media that the upcoming Windows 95 would
>not support DOS anymore - "DOS is now dead"
>they said.
>
>Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
>
