What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Here you can propose new features, make suggestions etc.

Moderators: sheep, Hacker, Stefan2, white

User avatar
elgonzo
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 2013-09-04, 14:07 UTC

Post by *elgonzo » 2013-10-16, 22:05 UTC

Horst.Epp wrote:
ghisler(Author) wrote:Many companies still use Windows 9x or even 3.1, mainly on standalone machines - simply because there are no drivers for newer Windows versions.
But they can stay with a old TC version
as there are no new functions needed on such environments.
I wholeheartedly agree and i don't want to spoil your soup.
But, well, i will spoil your soup: Even Intel could not get rid of the dreaded ancient A20 gate. It is still there in some form in current chip-sets. That should tell us something... :cry:

cubic
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2007-07-18, 12:21 UTC

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *cubic » 2019-07-15, 15:00 UTC

So, was TC ported to Lazarus in the end?
I would like to switch to Lazarus too.


User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 38451
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2019-07-18, 09:36 UTC

Why should I? The Lazarus version is much larger.
Author of Total Commander
http://www.ghisler.com

marlar
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-03-08, 11:18 UTC

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *marlar » 2019-08-20, 20:08 UTC

ghisler(Author) wrote:
2019-07-18, 09:36 UTC
Why should I?
To create a Linux version ! :D

(And Mac too for that matter)

User avatar
MVV
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 8412
Joined: 2008-08-03, 12:51 UTC
Location: Russian Federation

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *MVV » 2019-08-21, 05:25 UTC

Porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus has no any sense, because 64-bit TC is already ported to Lazarus. Porting to Linux/Mac is hard because TC uses many Windows API calls, which should all be replaced with Linux/Mac library calls.

marlar
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-03-08, 11:18 UTC

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *marlar » 2019-08-21, 06:05 UTC

MVV wrote:
2019-08-21, 05:25 UTC
Porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus has no any sense, because 64-bit TC is already ported to Lazarus.
Really? Do you mean that 64-bit TC is written in Lazarus or is it a special version?

I agree about 32-bit, my comments was aimed a Lazarus in general.

BTW, the best TC clone for Linux is in my opinion Double Commander. It is very close.

User avatar
MVV
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 8412
Joined: 2008-08-03, 12:51 UTC
Location: Russian Federation

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *MVV » 2019-08-21, 11:59 UTC

Yes, I mean that any 64-bit TC is compiled with Lazarus. :)

User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 38451
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: What about porting 32-bit TC to Lazarus?

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2019-08-22, 09:46 UTC

That's not the only problem - TC uses a lot of plugins, and they are all Windows DLLs. They couldn't be used by a native Linux version.
Author of Total Commander
http://www.ghisler.com

Post Reply