Stephanie:
One thing is for sure. All of us who have commercial software out
there have to roll with whatever Apple does. It was a huge surprise
to me when Apple released their Intel systems 6 months early. RB has
to roll with Apple as do the rest of us. I stayed with RB for all of
these years because it worked. I could do things with RB that I
can't do with any other compiler and although none of us enjoys
change, it's the nature of the beast. As a consumer, I want what
every other consumer wants... I have to have a compiler to build my
software. I just want one that works, without project files growing
every time I save it, without compiled apps growing by 9MB in less
than a week, and compile times I can live with. I don't think I'm
complaining too much or asking for too much. I think this IS on RB
only because it's being sold every day in this condition.
Mike
On Feb 19, 2006, at 11:42 AM, stephane richard wrote:
Well I'm a quite new user to RB (and a windows user at that), so
I'm not exactly in a position to speak. However, I can only assume
that those of your that have been with RB for years have also been
with Mac OS 8 and 9 as well as X. The real question, I think,
should be: "Did RB cause these issues, or did the Newer Mac OS
did?" Then point the finger at the right place to get these issues
resolved.
Even in the windows world, if you compare today's VB.NET with VB 3
there's a pathetic different in size and execution speed (and to
think, at the time, the 32 bit world was suppose to give is speed
among other things). In that case should we blame VB or the New
Windows OS? Know what I'm saying?
These issues that are being talked about here in this series of
thread, i'm not sure I'd throw all of them on RB's back. I'd start
to consider if Mac OS doesn't have any flaws in it's designs on
such areas as resource management, tasking and the likes. Because
to me, these descriptions seem to be OS related (if not anything
else, a different mode of instantiation might be needed for objects
to be streamlined in the OS.
As far as I can tell, these issues don't seem to exist in the
windows version, that could be because of OS itself too. So I'm
not saying you're not right in what you are saying, maybe it is RB,
but to me, the issues themselves seem to talk more about the OS
rather than the programming language. I just like the fingers to
be pointed in the right directions ;-) hehe.
MystikShadows
Stephane Richard
----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "REALbasic NUG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: RB2006r1 VERY VERY Slow
On Feb 19, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Michael Krugman wrote:
Thanks for the reply. Guess I'll have to go to G8 or 9 with 3 or
4 1 TG processors :( I'm surprised that the entire NUG list
isn't screaming about these problems. I'm even further
surprised that there isn't really a lot of these complaints on
the Feedback site.
Because many don't think it would help..
RS is aware of some of many the problems already... and if they
ever start using RB200* internally for IDE development they will
quickly see all the strange little bugs and quirks of the new
IDE... as well as the speed issues...
A few months I back bought a Dual Core PowerMac G5 2.3 GHz and 20"
widescreen monitor to deal with some of the issues...
- Karen
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
