Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!tank!mimsy!haven!umd5!jonnyg From: jonnyg@umd5.umd.edu (Jon Greenblatt) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Try calling your app "DISPLAY.EXE" Message-ID: <4285@umd5.umd.edu> Date: 29 Nov 88 06:14:21 GMT References: <959@paris.ics.uci.edu> <366@enint.Wichita.NCR.COM> Reply-To: jonnyg@umd5.umd.edu (Jon Greenblatt) Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Lines: 46 In article <366@enint.Wichita.NCR.COM> blair@enint.Wichita.NCR.COM (Brian Lair) writes: %In article <959@paris.ics.uci.edu>, posert@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Bob Posert) writes: %> Even a slight variation yields a file that will run; %> windows will run both msdosc.exe and msdose.exe, but not msdosd.exe. % %Fortunately, this oddity is explained in Petzold, p. 806: % %"Some dynamic libraries are designed for use only by a specific program. %For instance, the MSDOS.EXE file is a Windows program* that uses a dynamic ....... %(Reprinted without permission. Void where prohibited.) % %* Someone pointed out in a previous posting, however, that MSDOS.EXE is %more than likely NOT a Windows program, but merely a placeholder to direct %the MS-DOS Executive Window to run another instance of itself. I'm the *someone and I would like to disagree with Petzold. MSDOS.EXE is 1 byte on my system. It would seem to me that a one byte windows program is imposible. MSDOS.EXE is 46224 bytes in the distribution, that says to me that MSDOS.EXE is loaded into the windows executable at setup time. When windows starts up, the MSDOS.EXE code is already there. It is my assumption that the screen driver is loaded under the name DISPLAY. Since these instances are already loaded, trying to execute them again will only create a new instance, the actual .EXE will be ingnored. This to me is a major flaw in windows, there should realy be a magic number associated with the .EXE which is read and compared when a new disk volume or directory is used. If Windows becomes popular, how could two independent companies help but come up with programs with Identical names. I program with Actor so my understanding of MS Windows is neccesarily a little weak but Petzold seems wrong to me. I say neccesarily weak because I try to keep a much simpler looking environment in Actor than in C using the standard windows calls. Through encapsulation, I usualy make things 10 times more powerful, 10 times more flexable, and use a 20th of the code and debugging time. Have I converted anyone? BTW most of my code is highly interactive and involves complex graphic operations based on user input. Simular encapsulation could be done in C but its Ooooh so much easier in Actor. Please excuse my spelling and syntax, it's way past my bed time!! JonnyG. (jonnyg@umd5.umd.edu) (jonnyg@rover.umd.edu)