On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 10:06:00PM +, Ekkehard Kraemer wrote:
> Can anybody speculate on this? I would love to use JDK 1.2 finally (be it
> Inprise or Blackdown, never mind), but I cannot do so since it crashes systems
> when using JFrame/JDialog with certain window managers.
Well, one place
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:01:17PM +, Nicholas Wright wrote:
> Hi
>
> Re: 128MB minimum memory - JBuilder was a big application on Windows... what
> makes you think it would be smaller written in Java?
Actually JBuilder Foundation is more efficient than the previous
versions because we had
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:34:27PM -0800, Nathan Meyers wrote:
> Java is a memory hog... it's not JBuilder, it's Java. I've found that
> my system was pretty much useless for any Java work at 64M. When Linux
> JDKs catch up with some of the improvements now being enjoyed in other
> environments (l
Hi,
the latest development version of Tritonus, the JavaSound implementation
for Linux, now includes mp3 support. This is due to integration of
javalayer 0.0.7, a pure-java mp3 decoder developed by the javalayer
project. The big credit for this goes to Eric B. who wrote the decoder.
The integrat
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 03:34:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> The success of any product depends on the advantages it offers and failure
> always depends on restrictions it imposes. Most of the users will be using 64MB
> RAM systems. For JBuilder on Linux should they add more me
Hi
Re: 128MB minimum memory - JBuilder was a big application on Windows... what
makes you think it would be smaller written in Java?
Nicholas
> Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:24:13 -0700 (MST)
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:19:52 -0800
> From: Paolo Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: José Romil
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:47:18PM -0500, Alan Hazelton wrote:
>
> I agree with your surprise though. It seems quite outrageous to require so
> much memory for an application. I think the JBuilder team should have spent
> a bit more time trimming the memory requirements before rushing the produ
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:47:18PM -0500, Alan Hazelton wrote:
>
> José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
>
> > The recommended minimum memory is 128MB! Is that really need? I have
> > only 64MB. Would it be worth downloading and experimenting? Is anybody
> > else using JBuilder under Linux with less tha
Hi,
The success of any product depends on the advantages it offers and failure
always depends on restrictions it imposes. Most of the users will be using 64MB
RAM systems. For JBuilder on Linux should they add more memory? I do not agree
with you. If it is not on Linux the product would have gon
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:10:05PM -0200, José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Adam Ambrose wrote:
> > Yes, you just need to fill out a million forms to get it, but you can
> > get it for free from the Inprise web site:
> > http://www.inprise.com/jbuilder/found
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:26:56PM -0200, José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 04:40:47PM -0500, Alan Hazelton wrote:
> > I've got a Redhat 6.1 system with the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 RC3
> > installed. I installed the Borland Jbuilder 3 foundation IDE. It runs
> > ok except for a
High,
I just gave the Inprise JDK and JBuilder a try. Nice-looking stuff, especially
the debugger is just great. Nevertheless, I'll stay with Emacs and makefiles
and cvs...
Ok. However, I noticed that JBuilder (the IDE itself) does not in any way have
problems with its windows under WindowMaker.
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:10:05PM -0200, José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Adam Ambrose wrote:
> > Yes, you just need to fill out a million forms to get it, but you can
> > get it for free from the Inprise web site:
> > http://www.inprise.com/jbuilder/found
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:47:18PM -0500, Alan Hazelton wrote:
>
> José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
>
> > The recommended minimum memory is 128MB! Is that really need? I have
> > only 64MB. Would it be worth downloading and experimenting? Is anybody
> > else using JBuilder under Linux with less tha
José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
> The recommended minimum memory is 128MB! Is that really need? I have
> only 64MB. Would it be worth downloading and experimenting? Is anybody
> else using JBuilder under Linux with less than the recommended 128MB?
I tried it with 48MB and it was almost unusable.
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Adam Ambrose wrote:
> > Yes, you just need to fill out a million forms to get it, but you can
> > get it for free from the Inprise web site:
> > http://www.inprise.com/jbuilder/foundation/
>
> The recommended minimum memory is 128MB! Is that really need
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Adam Ambrose wrote:
> Yes, you just need to fill out a million forms to get it, but you can
> get it for free from the Inprise web site:
> http://www.inprise.com/jbuilder/foundation/
The recommended minimum memory is 128MB! Is that really need? I have
onl
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:26:56PM -0200, José Romildo Malaquias wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 04:40:47PM -0500, Alan Hazelton wrote:
> > I've got a Redhat 6.1 system with the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 RC3
> > installed. I installed the Borland Jbuilder 3 foundation IDE. It runs
> > ok except for a
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 04:40:47PM -0500, Alan Hazelton wrote:
> I've got a Redhat 6.1 system with the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 RC3
> installed. I installed the Borland Jbuilder 3 foundation IDE. It runs
> ok except for a few little annoyances. [...]
Is there a downloadable version of JBuilder 3 for
19 matches
Mail list logo
