Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

DirectX and Win32s + Windows 3.1?

420 views
Skip to first unread message

Igor Dagayev

unread,
Oct 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/4/96
to

Hi!

Does anybody know is Win32s+win3.1 support DirectX technology?
Our company had developed game, that use DirectX. We want to
enlarge our market and include old Win3.x.

Thank you.
Igor Dagaev.

James Shaw

unread,
Oct 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/4/96
to

Igor Dagayev <a...@softline.donetsk.ua> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>Does anybody know is Win32s+win3.1 support DirectX technology?
>Our company had developed game, that use DirectX. We want to
>enlarge our market and include old Win3.x.

No.
win3.1 + win32s <> win95.

I've also heard (and it makes some sense) that DirectX will not be
backwards ported to Win3.1.

Jim.

Michael B Herf

unread,
Oct 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/5/96
to

Excerpts from netnews.comp.graphics: 4-Oct-96 Re: DirectX and Win32s +
Wi.. by James Shaw@curved-logic.
> I've also heard (and it makes some sense) that DirectX will not be
> backwards ported to Win3.1.

This is correct. Even NT4.0 will not have a full Direct3D until
sometime early 1997. (DirectDraw is available.)

mike

Daniel Phillips

unread,
Oct 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/6/96
to

he...@CMU.EDU says...

Well, doesn't that mean there's a natural opportunity for somebody
to make a whole pile of $$$ by putting up a DirectDraw on Win 3.1,
which is still in very wide use? (Still more than 60 Megainstalls.)

--
Daniel Phillips
phil...@dowco.com


James Shaw

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

phil...@dowco.com (Daniel Phillips) wrote:

The problem is not with the theory of porting it, it's in the
implementation. You really need 32bit flat model to make sense of
these API's - who ever heard of a segmented LFB?

Nothing to say that a directx-like product could not be created.

Jim

Joshua Boyd

unread,
Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96
to

James Shaw <j...@curved-logic.com> wrote in article
<3258ccc...@snews2.zippo.com>...

> phil...@dowco.com (Daniel Phillips) wrote:
> >Well, doesn't that mean there's a natural opportunity for somebody
> >to make a whole pile of $$$ by putting up a DirectDraw on Win 3.1,
> >which is still in very wide use? (Still more than 60 Megainstalls.)
>
> The problem is not with the theory of porting it, it's in the
> implementation. You really need 32bit flat model to make sense of
> these API's - who ever heard of a segmented LFB?
>
> Nothing to say that a directx-like product could not be created.
I would have assumed that he meant to do it on win32s for wfw 3.1, which
would give him flat memory access. It's not a bad idea, but from what I
know it would be more trouble than it is worth, especially considering the
performance loss.


0 new messages