If I did not misinterpret this, Bernie said:
"Go to http://www.calmira.org
This will not only give you a Windows Explorer for Windows 3.1, but it
will make your Windows 3.1 look and feel just like (okay, better than)
Win95."
It is true that Calmira offers a pile of bells, Whistles, and conveniences
many of which look like and/or are better than windows 95. But it
does this at an enormous cost of efficiency. The calmira programs
got bigger and bigger, more and more resource and memory hungry as
development went on.
I wrote the author at one point asking if it does not defeat the purpose
of a win 3.1 program to offer more features at the expense of requiring
more and better hardware? He replied that ``memory was cheap'' now, and
he had better things to do with his time that optimize code to save
a few bytes here and there.
I dont understand why survpc folks would prefer a progman replacement
that had the same philosophy as win 95: offer more features at the price
of a program that is less efficient and more prone to the dread GPFs
than progman itself.
Could someone explain the appeal?
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
