🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Mar25.014347.25497@caen.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes:
>In article <28236@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes:
>>< Is there any way to do graphics in OS/2 without spending the time to
>>< learn the PM programmers interface?
>>
>>It's amazing to me that this is the first time I've seen this question
>>asked.  Somehow we have been convinced into thinking that OS/2 application
>>means PM application... 
>
>With every new release of OS/2, it becomes more and more
>obvious that the intention is to encourage PM rather than full-screen
>applications.  I can't think of many reasons not to use PM, especially
>for graphics-oriented applications.

How about speed?  Ever try to write animation programs through an API which
can switch tasks almost at will?  Or a program that doesn't use the normal
event/processing/drawing/'wait for next event' loop?

One problem with every windowing/graphics system I have ever programmed for
(Windows, PM, Sunview, Mac) is that if you try to do something slightly
different from the windowing 'model' in use is like pulling teeth.  It reminds
me of the Murphy's law, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like
a nail..."

>Now, after that brief tirade, I can say that there is no directly supported
>way to do graphics without using PM.  That's not to say it isn't possible,

There are VIO calls to put the screen into graphics mode, and also a call
to return the screen segment selector.  If you are programming in the EGA/VGA
16 color modes, then you will also require IOPL to be YES (since we need
access to the bit mask register, etc.).  But I would say there is documented
support for graphics calls under OS/2 without PM!


-- 
Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA
{arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil
uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh
"If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."