Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-29 Thread Steven Edwards
> > You might want to take a look at microwindows if > you > > want GDI/framebuffer > > However, keep in mind that Microwindows can be had > at > either MPL and GPL licenses. True, but you might be able to get them relicense certain parts for wine.

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-29 Thread Steven Edwards
--- Hetz Ben Hamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, maybe I should actually do that. As an added > bonus since VNC is just > > basically a generic framebuffer it would allow a > fairly easy port to > > another generic framebuffer interface such as > LinuxFB (or whatever the new > > hot-shit FB

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-29 Thread Jakob Eriksson
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Gavriel State wrote: > > > Now, the interesting thing is this: Once we have a GDI renderer, we can > > eliminate a *huge* amount of DIBSection cruft from the X11 driver. Currently > > Wine goes through astou

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-29 Thread Hetz Ben Hamo
> Hmm, maybe I should actually do that. As an added bonus since VNC is just > basically a generic framebuffer it would allow a fairly easy port to > another generic framebuffer interface such as LinuxFB (or whatever the new > hot-shit FB project for Linux is these days). Hmm, do I hear embedded

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-28 Thread Dimitrie O. Paun
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Gavriel State wrote: > Now, the interesting thing is this: Once we have a GDI renderer, we can > eliminate a *huge* amount of DIBSection cruft from the X11 driver. Currently > Wine goes through astounding manipulations to get X to draw things for > us when we should be doing

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-28 Thread Gavriel State
David Elliott wrote: > > On 2002.01.28 02:12 Gavriel State wrote: > > There would be no appreciable differences. As I said, this was mostly > > something > > we were just toying with. > > Very interesting. I was considering making an RFB (the VNC protocol) > backend for Wine for about the same

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-28 Thread David Elliott
On 2002.01.28 02:12 Gavriel State wrote: > There would be no appreciable differences. As I said, this was mostly > something > we were just toying with. > > -Gav > Very interesting. I was considering making an RFB (the VNC protocol) backend for Wine for about the same reason. That is that

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-27 Thread Gavriel State
There would be no appreciable differences. As I said, this was mostly something we were just toying with. -Gav Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > Hï Gavriel, > > Could you provide 2 screenshots please - one with this SDL driver and the > same - without SDL please? > > Thanks, > Hetz > > On Sunday 27

Re: A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-27 Thread Hetz Ben Hamo
Hï Gavriel, Could you provide 2 screenshots please - one with this SDL driver and the same - without SDL please? Thanks, Hetz On Sunday 27 January 2002 06:49, Gavriel State wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We just put this together for some testing, and thought that someone might > find it handy. I'

A new SDL back-end we've been toying with

2002-01-26 Thread Gavriel State
Hi everyone, We just put this together for some testing, and thought that someone might find it handy. I'm not submitting it to wine-patches, since we haven't tested it on the most recent winehq tree, but it should be pretty easy to integrate in. It's not 100% complete by any means, but it has