?
That is, interpreters are inserted between the app and its host O/S to
dynamically apply the port. As a result of the additional processing
required, a given soft/hard configuration loses a portion of its speed to
the porting application. How does Lindows perform in this respect??
- Original Message -
From: Jon Elson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel on Lindows
| Don Ingram wrote:
|
| Hi Jon,
|
| Are you running it in a production environment for regular prottle work?
|
| We don't
undocumented API calls.
Therefore, they wouldn't use them.
Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website: www.bagotronix.com
- Original Message -
From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA
I tried using Protel 98 a couple of months ago on Wine (which is the
open-source project that Lindows is based on). I couldn't get schematic
capture to work but PCB was quite usable (though a bit slower than on
windows). Maybe later I'll try out the 99 demo version on a newer version
of Wine.
?
That is, interpreters are inserted between the app and its host O/S to
dynamically apply the port. As a result of the additional processing
required, a given soft/hard configuration loses a portion of its speed to
the porting application. How does Lindows perform in this respect?? Have
