On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> You can now hear Clarus moofing for yourself:
> http://clarus.chez-alice.fr/
>
Or I could pop in one of my old developer CDs.
I bought my first CD drive when apple started shipping on them ins
On 06/08/2017 07:53 AM, Dr. Hawkins via use-livecode wrote:
moof!
(dating myself . . .)
You can now hear Clarus moofing for yourself:
http://clarus.chez-alice.fr/
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@l
Mark Waddingham wrote:
Richard's repeated suggestion that such machines should be 'Linux-ised'
still always was and continues to be an excellent suggestion. Remember
that as as time goes by the amount of up to date software which *can*
run on them will dwindle to nothing - for the same reason
Even California does not require you to support something beyond 10 years.
Bob S
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 07:50 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I'd also point out (again) that we are talking about machines which are now >
> 10 years old (the last Mac which can only run up to 10.
On 2017-06-08 21:16, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
I'm afraid you misread my question. When I stated I was running MacOS
10.4 PPC it was not in expectation of your leaping
up and down and say "Well, yes, Just for you, Richmond, we're going to
set things up for future versions of Live
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> I don't see the problem as relating to machines that LiveCode might be
> deployed on, but as machines for which 32-bit
> standalones might be authored.
In my reading of Mark's comment, it doesn't seem that's going away,
merely tha 64-bit-only builds will become the d
I don't see the problem as relating to machines that LiveCode might be
deployed on, but as machines for which 32-bit
standalones might be authored.
My highly theoretical scenario runs a bit likes this;
A number of schools in what are coyly called "third world countries"
running old machines fo
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> here is no logical reason a 64 bit app would run slower than a 32 bit one.
At least in the special case of needing to load data that gets stored in 64
bit words where 32 bit words would have be
Simple: Unicode support. It's not 64 bit that is slowing you down. Not sure how
you make that connection.
Bob S
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 09:08 , JosebaTELUR via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> Why LiveCode 8 or 9 in 64bits are more slwww than LiveCode 5.5.4 in my
> new iMac with Sier
Microsoft suffered for years over backwards compatibility with DOS. MS wanted
to move forward with their OS at a quicker pace but there were so many
"critical" apps running under DOS that talked directly with the hardware, that
no one wanted MS to depricate it. Windows 95 was supposed to be the
On 6/8/17 6:56 pm, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
Roger Eller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Using a supported version of an OS that's receiving critical security
>> patches along with other updates is the safest choice, and one that
>> could not be
Has anyone apart from me actually tried running Linux on a Mac PPC machine.
A few years ago I installed Lubuntu on a MacMini PPC and tried to build
a PPC Linuxversion of Livecode,
and got nowehere.
Quite apart from my sad efforts at that, the machine was as slow as wet
cement; functionally us
On 6/8/17 1:19 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
On 2017-06-08 12:04, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:
So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
Seriously - you ask that question?
LiveCode 9 still happily runs stacks which were written in the early
days of MetaCard.
We
Tut, tut, Roger: you forgot the kilt!
Richmond.
On 6/8/17 1:34 pm, Roger Eller via use-livecode wrote:
-- In a dark back office, Richmond, wearing dark glasses, a fedora, and a
tan trenchcoat, dumps a large bag of Monopoly money onto the table. Marks
eyes are now like saucers. "Moot", Richmon
Hello:
Why LiveCode 8 or 9 in 64bits are more slwww than LiveCode 5.5.4 in my new
iMac with Sierra??
Please LiveCode programmers move forward, not back
Un saludo.
Joseba Aguayo Fernández
(jagu...@telur.es)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use
Hi Richmond,
Did you miss the memo about:
Apple Zero-Day Flaw Leaves OS X Systems Vulnerable to Attack
Zero day flaws have always been there in the Mac OS X operating system
from the very beginning. These have been patched in later versions of
Mac OS X, but earlier versions were never patched.
Roger Eller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Using a supported version of an OS that's receiving critical security
>> patches along with other updates is the safest choice, and one that
>> could not be more economical given a purchase price for most Linux
>> dist
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Richmond wrote:
>
> > So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
> >
> > I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
> >
> > A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor c
Richmond wrote:
> So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
>
> I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
>
> A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they
> can be used for good purposes.
I can appreciate the desire to get full life out of hardware, an
LOVE IT!!! Thanks for that info, Richard.
~Roger
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Roger Eller wrote:
> > Once in a while I still miss running "Revolution" on Irix. We move
> > forward, not backward.
>
> FWIW, IRIX is co
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Roger Eller via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> -- In a dark back office, Richmond, wearing dark glasses, a fedora, and a
> tan trenchcoat, dumps a large bag of Monopoly money onto the table. Marks
> eyes are now like saucers. "Moot", Richmo
Roger Eller wrote:
> Once in a while I still miss running "Revolution" on Irix. We move
> forward, not backward.
FWIW, IRIX is coming back - and as a Linux desktop, so we should be able
to use the Linux build of LiveCode with it:
Silicon Graphics' IRIX and Magic Desktop return as Linux deskto
I was going to respond to this earlier but I decided not to. There is no
logical reason a 64 bit app would run slower than a 32 bit one. Certainly not
noticably slower. In fact, there is every reason to expect it to be faster in
some respects, as the pipe to the processor is twice as wide. Not s
On 2017-06-08 16:19, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:54 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
As a general request, can people let us know if they are relying on
externals on Mac which are currently 32-bit only?
Forgive the dumb question Mark, but how does someone tell
On 6/8/2017 3:54 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
> As a general request, can people let us know if they are relying on
> externals on Mac which are currently 32-bit only?
Forgive the dumb question Mark, but how does someone tell whether
externals are 32 bit or 64 bit?
In my first LC
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:55 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> As a general request, can people let us know if they are relying on
> externals on Mac which are currently 32-bit only?
I have a couple of externals I use in my apps that are 32-bit. I hav
I use a G4 Quicksilver as a server. I have taken it apart and put it back
together several times, something I can't do with a Mac Mini or MacBook. I use
Revolution 4.x for special server tasks. It would be convenient if I could use
the latest version of LiveCode to build not only for Windows, Li
Once in a while I still miss running "Revolution" on Irix. We move
forward, not backward.
On Jun 8, 2017 6:39 AM, "Mark Waddingham via use-livecode" <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> On 2017-06-08 12:34, Roger Eller via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> -- In a dark back office, Richmond, wearing
On 2017-06-08 12:34, Roger Eller via use-livecode wrote:
-- In a dark back office, Richmond, wearing dark glasses, a fedora, and
a
tan trenchcoat, dumps a large bag of Monopoly money onto the table.
Marks
eyes are now like saucers. "Moot", Richmond says under his breath,
then
leaves the room
-- In a dark back office, Richmond, wearing dark glasses, a fedora, and a
tan trenchcoat, dumps a large bag of Monopoly money onto the table. Marks
eyes are now like saucers. "Moot", Richmond says under his breath, then
leaves the room with a strut, as if he is carrying the world in his pocket.
-
On 2017-06-08 12:28, hh via use-livecode wrote:
1) You are comparing 64bit and 32bit modes on a 64bit architecture.
This is the correct answer for my cheeky post above (by the way that
wasn't targeted, to the special case LiveCode and was a bit caused by
the fact that the first 64bit-Finder was 8
Thanks for the enlightening explanation.
Of course I don't go into a technical discussion with an expert.
Only two remarks:
1) You are comparing 64bit and 32bit modes on a 64bit architecture.
This is the correct answer for my cheeky post above (by the way that
wasn't targeted, to the special case
On 2017-06-08 12:04, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:
So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
Seriously - you ask that question?
LiveCode 9 still happily runs stacks which were written in the early
days of MetaCard.
We are *extremely* careful not to break existing scripts and sta
So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they can
be used
for good purposes.
Richmond.
On 08/06/17 09:19, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
On 2017-06-07 21:5
On 2017-06-07 22:14, hh via use-livecode wrote:
64bit mode usually makes apps slower. So what's Apple's intention?
To make their own apps "relatively faster" by making all others slower?
Do you have some benchmarks to back that up? I'd be interested to know
what sort of workloads the differenc
On 2017-06-08 08:48, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote:
I would love to build 64-bit for Mac, but up to now, the Valentina
extension
is still 32-bit, I hope they'll get it fixed by time.
I must confess that we always had the intent of dropping the 32-bit
slice of the engine on Mac from
endet: Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2017 08:19
An: How to use LiveCode
Cc: Mark Waddingham
Betreff: Re: 64 bit desktop apps
On 2017-06-07 21:59, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
> I disagree as there are plenty of Macs "out there" in the worldthat
> run 32-bit systems.
Not t
On 2017-06-07 21:59, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
I disagree as there are plenty of Macs "out there" in the worldthat
run 32-bit systems.
Not that LiveCode supports.
Far better to have BOTH possibilities checked as default.
Only if there existed a Mac which can run LiveCode bu
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Colin Holgate via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> I’m running High Sierra, the one before the 32 bit ban I guess, and it
> can still run LiveCode 5 ok.
>
I'm *supposed* to be offered beta apple software on this machine, but it
denies that any
on top of
it. His response was “I am hiding under the blakets with my fingers in my ears”.
.Jerry
> On Jun 7, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Charles Szasz via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Apple announced that the next MacOS operation system after High Sierra will
> only support 64 bit des
64bit mode usually makes apps slower. So what's Apple's intention?
To make their own apps "relatively faster" by making all others slower?
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and man
I disagree as there are plenty of Macs "out there" in the worldthat run
32-bit systems.
Far better to have BOTH possibilities checked as default.
Richmond.
On 6/7/17 10:14 pm, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
On 6/7/17 10:41 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
The SB by default
that the next MacOS operation system after High Sierra will
>> only support 64 bit desktop apps. What version of LC supports creating 64
>> bit apps?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing lis
On 6/7/17 10:41 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
The SB by default builds for 32-bit mode, but you can choose 64-bit by
checking the appropriate box.
When Apple begins requiring 64-bit, it would be a good idea to make this
the default in the SB.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay |
8.1.3 does.
Richmond.
On 6/7/17 6:05 pm, Charles Szasz via use-livecode wrote:
Apple announced that the next MacOS operation system after High Sierra will
only support 64 bit desktop apps. What version of LC supports creating 64 bit
apps?
Sent from my iPad
S operation system after High Sierra
>> will only support 64 bit desktop apps. What version of LC supports
>> creating 64 bit apps?
>
> LiveCode 8.x onwards.
>
> Currently the IDE runs in 32-bit mode by default (you can change this by
> using 'Get Info' on the
On 2017-06-07 17:05, Charles Szasz via use-livecode wrote:
Apple announced that the next MacOS operation system after High Sierra
will only support 64 bit desktop apps. What version of LC supports
creating 64 bit apps?
LiveCode 8.x onwards.
Currently the IDE runs in 32-bit mode by default
Apple announced that the next MacOS operation system after High Sierra will
only support 64 bit desktop apps. What version of LC supports creating 64 bit
apps?
Sent from my iPad
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit
48 matches
Mail list logo
