Rev 453 | Rev 459 | Go to most recent revision | Show entire file | Regard whitespace | Details | Blame | Last modification | View Log | RSS feed
| Rev 453 | Rev 454 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 16... | Line 16... | ||
| 16 | 16 | ||
| 17 | 17 | ||
| 18 | Minor priority stuff or ideas |
18 | Minor priority stuff or ideas |
| 19 | ----------------------------- |
19 | ----------------------------- |
| 20 | 20 | ||
| - | 21 | * Can we still improve the speed? Filter Factory still seems to be faster! |
|
| - | 22 | ||
| 21 | * Should we completely remove all Apple code? It will make things much easier, and newer Apple ports need completely remake anyway. On the other hand, we lose a potential back port to ancient Mac. |
23 | * Should we completely remove all Apple code? It will make things much easier, and newer Apple ports need completely remake anyway. On the other hand, we lose a potential back port to ancient Mac. |
| 22 | 24 | ||
| 23 | * Right to the sliders you can enter numbers which are outside the range of 0..255 . Prevent that, please. |
25 | * Right to the sliders you can enter numbers which are outside the range of 0..255 . Prevent that, please. |
| 24 | 26 | ||
| 25 | * Win95 cannot detect a 64 bit obfuscated filter, because it cannot read the resources. Should there be a different mechanism for detecting an obfuscated filter? (e.g. a signature in PiPL which can be found using binary search?) |
27 | * Win95 cannot detect a 64 bit obfuscated filter, because it cannot read the resources. Should there be a different mechanism for detecting an obfuscated filter? (e.g. a signature in PiPL which can be found using binary search?) |