Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:38:50 -0800 From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: "'Christoph Kukulies'" <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>, "'Narvi'" <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> Cc: "'hackers@FreeBSD.ORG'" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...) Message-ID: <01BB042E.43827350@hamby1.lightside.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>But to bring FreeBSD to the desktop you need a bit more than just >emulation - otherwise microsoft will be able to point and say - on the >same hardware, FreeBSD runs all (counting, of course only windows >programs) programs mmuch slowlier. And also have a thing to compare Win95 >against on the charts... Well, TWIN (from Willows) runs pretty fast, even faster than "native" Motif, it looks like. And I don't see how FreeBSD could turn out slower than NT (which has to go through a "client-server" scheme for every API call.) I think that with a library such as TWIN, and enough programs compiled "natively" (as well as binary emulation for the rest), and don't forget MFC/C++ support, you would turn out as good or better than NT, and even Win95. >Ever tried Tcl/Tk? You can do the same under FreeBSD/XFree86 in at least >the same time + the tools are free. Tcl/Tk sounds interesting, I would like to find time to learn that. I hope it is simpler than Motif to come up with a good interface (no $3000 GUI builder tools needed?). The thing is that with VC++ and MFC, you can come up with a VERY pretty user interface with VERY little work because most of the work has been done by the application framework. You can achieve almost as good results with Motif with a $3000 GUI builder but sometimes the GUI builder itself is very unintuitive, and certainly doesn't help you MAINTAIN the program it generates as much as VC++ does with ClassWizard. ---Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01BB042E.43827350>