On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Drew Northup wrote:
> I don't think that I made this clear...., but in Win32 all applications are
> modules of kernel32.exe--which is the Win32API kernel NOT AN OPERATING
> SYSTEM KERNEL (command.com/io.sys are the operating system--so long as we
> are talking about an operating system in the _most_ purist sense).
Aren't the io.sys/command.com just a loaders? Perhaps win9x does calls
services from dos kernel for certain purposes, but I sincerely have the
doubt that io.sys manages video in win9x... it should be driver+gdi?
> That is
> why I made a big deal about it. As for the similarity of how DirectX does
> things..., DirectX is an application--driver communication API. It sits ON
> TOP OF the Win32API.
I thought that win32api is (mostly) plain 2d when it comes to graphics?
THis is quite different from dx/ogl. Can't see the way of doing
accelerated dx/ogl only through win3api...?
> What it really does is offloads CPU intensive tasks
> from kernel32.exe's primary modules (like texture rendering, for instance).
> It also DOES NOT FUNCTION LIKE A LINUX KERNEL MODULE.
Sure, I don't know a lot about dx architecture. I suppose that the basic
requirement of accelerated dx to work is to have "dx-ready" video driver
installed, which has these extra features...
> This is an important
> point that I seem to have neglected (I usually talk more with people who
> deal with Win32API more often....). None of the above function like a LINUX
> kernel module, in part because all of them (in fact all of the
> Win32API--with, so far as I know, no exceptions) lives in userland. This
> could really make a Win32API port of plex86 a very interesting proposition
> indeed!!!!
>
Kind of interesting, yes. With all flaws of windows, it manages to run
video pretty fast, full-screen VGA, 2d acceleration, directx, ogl,
everything is really fluent... Hope the similar level of
_video_ performance can be reached for plex86..
Uhus
