Ok then.., all is agreed there!!
Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Colin Davidson
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:06 AM
> To: Plex86
> Subject: RE: plex86 video proposal
>
>
> Hi Drew,
>
> To finish off this thread, I'd say we're now having a semantic
> disagreement.
> True,
> DirectX won't run without the kernel dll and uses services in it.
> It can be
> viewed
> as running "on top". I look at it a little differently. There is nothing
> between the
> graphics hardware and the DirectX driver, so from this viewpoint DirectX
> isn't "on
> top" of anything. Just a different perspective on the same picture.
>
> On the DirectX/GDI issue, in Win2K DirectX/3D is implemented in
> the display
> driver dll,
> so the two can share functionality. They don't have to and there is no
> "hook", but it
> only makes sense to use a common function where possible. In NT (pre-2K)
> only
> DirectDraw is supported, which is hardly worth the bother. In Win9x, the
> display
> driver has a "hook", but this is only to tell Windows that DirectX is
> supported and
> the name of the dll that supports it. DirectX drivers in Win9x
> will share a
> lot less
> functionality than in 2k.
>
> Hope this helps somehow...
>
> Regards, Colin
>
> > OK.., well thanks about the info on the ring0 code
> especially...... As for
> > the getting around laterally & not being dependent on the Win32API, my
> > conversations with the Win2k debug manager would point in other
> directions
> > (granted, he had to ask what VPN meant..., but when you spend that much
> time
> > in front of a terminal it is nice just to get to talk to real people!!).
> > These being 1) DirectX will not run without the kernel*.dll/rundll*.*
> > services in place (be nice if it ran on DOS alone though...), 2) in the
> most
> > pure sense, Win32--since it isn't really an operating system,
> has to deal
> > with the problems of command.com; however it is the existence of some of
> > these holes that allow things like DirectX to talk to the
> hardware without
> > using kernel*.dll/rundll*.* as an intermediary. And yes, I just did a
> > find.., there is no longer a kernel32.exe. And as for not using the GDI,
> it
> > was my understanding that DirectX has a hook into the GDI code
> that allows
> > it to take over certian functions when the application (also
> hooked to the
> > GDI) supports that particular implimentation (thus being a hell of a lot
> > faster).
>
>
>
