Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!marktwain.rad.sgi.com!linton
From: linton@marktwain.rad.sgi.com (Mark Linton)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.interviews
Subject: Re: InterViews under DOS???
Message-ID: <1991Apr14.041700.5434@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 14 Apr 91 04:17:00 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.213307.8460@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: linton@marktwain.rad.sgi.com (Mark Linton)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 13

In article <1991Apr11.213307.8460@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, lottis@cs.washington.edu (Kent David Lottis) writes:
|> 
|> but has anyone even contemplated porting InterViews to, say, MS-WINDOWS?
|> 
|> For that matter, has anyone ported InterViews to something other than X?
|> 
|> How firmly entrenched is InterViews in X?   Linton claims that the interface
|> is confined to the few X11* modules. Is this true, or are there fundamental
|> architectural factors that bind InterViews to X?

Would that "architectural factors" were the hardest part of portability.
Anyone attempting a port to DOS will find things like 8-character filenames and
C++ environment compatibility as big a headache (if not bigger) as anything architectural.