I would recommend you use Common Graphics.  CLIM is a long way from the
Windows look and feel.  CG applications are small, fast and zippy, with a
lot of Windows integration.  You can think of CG as a CLOS wrapping for the
Windows GUI API.

CLIM on ACL Windows doesn't interoperate with Common Graphics.

We are porting CG to ACL Unix on the theory that Microsoft has won the
desktop and hence we will use the WinAPI as our portability layer.  Several
companies are in this business supplying UNIX libraries with the Windows API.

CLIM does have some ongoing effort behind it, but it is a big task to make
it modern.  We would like to make CG an underpinning for a next generation
CLIM, but that is not a short term operation.

Regards,

Jim.

At 02:49 PM 3/26/97 -0500, Watton, John D. wrote:
>I have a relatively small application for windows (NT & 95) that I wish
>to distribute a runtime version for. I have come to the point where I
>need to do the GUI part of the program and I am asking for some advice.
>Should I use clim or common-graphics. In my mind the advantages of clim
>for me are: 
>	(1) I know clim very well from ACL 4.3 for unix.
>	(2) It is portable to Harlequin's LispWorks for windows (and the unix
>acl 4.3).
>
>Whereas, the disadvantages of clim are (or may be):
>	(1) A larger runtime image (can anyone estimate how much larger?).
>	(2) Slower graphics? (but it's not an application where this matters).
>
>Also, if I use clim do I still have access to common-graphics functions?
>I am concerned about the limitations of no multithreading and use
>process-pending-events to interrupt cpu intensive computations.
>
>Any free advice is greatly appreciatied. Thanks.
>
>John Watton, ALCOA
>
>	
>
>
>
>
>