🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Apr 2000 08:41:23 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn8elfi4.g18.jedidiah@localhost.localdomain>,
>JEDIDIAH <jedidiah@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>> amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>>> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
>>>> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
>>>> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
>>>> everywhere.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>>> supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
>> 
>> Assuming that they coded their applications with portability in mind
>> then deploying X other versions won't be that much more expensive.
>> Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems will help expose
>> problems with the reference codebase.
>
>It really depends on how much support they expect to get from the "OS"
>(strictly the OS and several layers of libraries on top of that.)  If
>they are very tightly tied to *COM* and the Windows GDI, then porting
>will be a minor nightmare, though possible, and much easier if they
>get in someone else's portability layer.  There are quite a few of
>those knocking about.

	Then they didn't code with portability in mind...

[deletia]

	Loki might have spent more time on the msvc++ -> gcc port of
	Heavy Gear II then they spent on the D3D -> GL part. There are
	plenty of opportunties to lock yourself in on Windows. This is
	true even if you aren't coding applications.

-- 

	It is not the advocates of free love and software
	that are the communists here , but rather those that        |||
	advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using         / | \
	one option among many, like in some regime where
	product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
	
			              Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.