That's actually a not such a bad idea, even on windows. I'm currently
testing my projects on Windos Vista (rc1), and I'm finding lots of free and
commercial installers no longer working. This is especially so on the x64
version.
RB, and the applications I develop with RB, however, perform without any
problems whatsoever.
If only Rb wouldn't create such rediculously large binaries (smallest is
3MB), but I guess that's the flip-side of having no runtime-dll-hell to
worry about. Oh well, everybody has broadband these days (my audience
anyways).
All in all, I like the idea of tailor making your own installer with RB.
Ronald Vogelaar
--
http://www.rovosoft.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Why RB for our installer
>Subject: Re: Determining whether Mac platform is Intel or PPC?
From: M Pulis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This thread gets more interesting every day. :-)
I am sure you have thought of this along the way, so now I am
curious. This could be a "dumb" question, perhaps off topic, so here
goes: If the RB app is only an installer, why not use Apple's
Installer? Or, a simple Cocoa application? What made RB the tool of
choice for this task?
We made the decision back to "roll our own" when OS 9 was introduced. It
was
triggered by Ray Sauer dropping support for DragInstall. I'm glad we did,
as
making the transition from OS 9 to OS X has been smooth and incremental. I
may
be wrong--I haven't looked closely at Apple's OS 9 and OS X installer
technologies--but I believe that if we had adopted Apple's OS 8 installer
technology we would have had to start completely from scratch with OS X.
_______________________________________________
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>
