Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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.

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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",

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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.

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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 >>

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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,

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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",

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: AW: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: AW: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: AW: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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,

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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,

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

-- 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.

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: AW: 64 bit desktop apps

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

AW: 64 bit desktop apps

: Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2017 08:19 An: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Cc: Mark Waddingham <m...@livecode.com> 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"

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 that LiveCode supports. Far better to have BOTH possibilities checked as default. Only if there existed a Mac which can run LiveCode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

ll > only support 64 bit desktop apps. What version of LC supports creating 64 bit > apps? ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

code 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 >> ___

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

>> 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 (you can change this b

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

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

64 bit desktop apps

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