PER MOLIN ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes
> Despite the fact that Hugs1.3c is supposed to be a 32-bit application, it
> consumes 100% of the CPU even with no program running. I've seen similar
> behaviour when running 16-bit apps in NT. Is Hugs REALLY a true 32-bit
> program?
I presume this is when using the graphical interface
(aka Hugs For Windows)?
[The rest of this answer is based on this assumption - let
us know if you meant something else]
Internally, Hugs certainly uses 32 bit integers extensively - but
perhaps your question is really about how well Hugs For Windows behaves
in a multitasking environment? (Doncha just love these linguistic
abuses by the world's favourite software company?)
In which case, your report suggests that the answer is "no".
There's nothing new here - the graphical interface for both 1.3 and 1.4
have the same (mis)behaviour. I'd guess that the only way it's
going to go away is to rewrite the graphical interface using
approved Win32 techniques - unless someone out there has any
suggestions?
Alastair
