GunSlinger Update 1

[The Storm]

Well, development is well under way. We are making this a standalone module for the first phase so that everyone will get a good idea how it will work. This version will ONLY work with NT versions of WorldGroup. We don't anticipate a DOS release of this module.

[ccs]

Well, development is well under way. We are making this a standalone module for the first phase so that everyone will get a good idea how it will work. This version will ONLY work with NT versions of WorldGroup. We don't anticipate a DOS release of this module.

Thats to bad.

It should not be to hard to build it for all the verssions.

Joe

[The Storm]

Well, development is well under way. We are making this a standalone module for the first phase so that everyone will get a good idea how it will work. This version will ONLY work with NT versions of WorldGroup. We don't anticipate a DOS release of this module.

Thats to bad.

It should not be to hard to build it for all the verssions.

Joe

Well, I need to build a case for a DOS version. How many people still run the DOS version og WG compared to those who run the NT version?

[Malakai]

Well, I use a combination of MBBS DOS and WGNT. A lot of MBBS DOS modules are backwards compatible with WG, and a lot aren't. Not sure if any one still uses MBBS besides me, however.

[ccs]

Well, I use a combination of MBBS DOS and WGNT. A lot of MBBS DOS modules are backwards compatible with WG, and a lot aren't. Not sure if any one still uses MBBS besides me, however.

I run a DOS Wg2.0 server that also connects to my WG2.0 DOS DMA server. So Yea I would love the DOS version. I'm sure Rick Hadsall can give you a few pointers in this regaurd.

Joe

[dspain]

Well, development is well under way. We are making this a standalone module for the first phase so that everyone will get a good idea how it will work. This version will ONLY work with NT versions of WorldGroup. We don't anticipate a DOS release of this module.

Thats to bad.

It should not be to hard to build it for all the verssions.

Joe

its more of a pain in the ass than hard from nt -> dos and vice versa.

like all user variable calls have to be changed to usroff, and some other stuff othusp->class becomes othusp->usrcls all the btrieve routines became DFa something

more of a pain than anything.

[The Storm]

Well, development is well under way. We are making this a standalone module for the first phase so that everyone will get a good idea how it will work. This version will ONLY work with NT versions of WorldGroup. We don't anticipate a DOS release of this module.

Thats to bad.

It should not be to hard to build it for all the verssions.

Joe

its more of a pain in the ass than hard from nt -> dos and vice versa.

like all user variable calls have to be changed to usroff, and some other stuff othusp->class becomes othusp->usrcls all the btrieve routines became DFa something

more of a pain than anything.

Yea, we know... That's why I originally announced that a DOS version is not in the works. I would need to see more than 2 WG DOS boards in the world.

[dspain]

Thats to bad.

It should not be to hard to build it for all the verssions.

Joe

its more of a pain in the ass than hard from nt -> dos and vice versa.

like all user variable calls have to be changed to usroff, and some other stuff othusp->class becomes othusp->usrcls all the btrieve routines became DFa something

more of a pain than anything.

Yea, we know... That's why I originally announced that a DOS version is not in the works. I would need to see more than 2 WG DOS boards in the world.

actually regarding wg2 theres alot more than people think.
i could name off 17 that i know for a fact run worldgroup 2.0 and i know of 2 running majorbbs.

and theres another one coming online sometime this fall running wg2

[Questman]

Yea, we know... That's why I originally announced that a DOS version is not in the works. I would need to see more than 2 WG DOS boards in the world.

Not true. You can compile WG2DOS versions of any WG3.3NT modules from the exact same source. Use the MKV2P command instead of MKNT in your source kit. You will have to distribute the GALV3.DLL with the DOS DLL you compile, but it works. All my WG2 compiles were done this way.

Some stuff can't at all compile under WG2, since they use specific WG3 stuff, but the conversion items - the arrays, variable types, etc - are not an issue.

[dspain]

Yea, we know... That's why I originally announced that a DOS version is not in the works. I would need to see more than 2 WG DOS boards in the world.

Not true. You can compile WG2DOS versions of any WG3.3NT modules from the exact same source. Use the MKV2P command instead of MKNT in your source kit. You will have to distribute the GALV3.DLL with the DOS DLL you compile, but it works. All my WG2 compiles were done this way.

Some stuff can't at all compile under WG2, since they use specific WG3 stuff, but the conversion items - the arrays, variable types, etc - are not an issue.

really? wierd never really toyed with that, i did know there was various mk*.bats for a series of other configurations never really toyed with it.
so things like user[othusn].state and usroff(othusn)->state are converted internally via this GALV3.DLL?

[Questman]

Yes. Your WG3 code works under WG2 thanks to the DLL. Very nice.

Look in the BIN directory of your WGDEV tree.

MK*.BAT

[dspain]

Yea, we know... That's why I originally announced that a DOS version is not in the works. I would need to see more than 2 WG DOS boards in the world.

Not true. You can compile WG2DOS versions of any WG3.3NT modules from the exact same source. Use the MKV2P command instead of MKNT in your source kit. You will have to distribute the GALV3.DLL with the DOS DLL you compile, but it works. All my WG2 compiles were done this way.

Some stuff can't at all compile under WG2, since they use specific WG3 stuff, but the conversion items - the arrays, variable types, etc - are not an issue.

have you had a problem with some wg2 modules unable to find entry point to DLL using the newer releases of tlink?