Paul Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aengus, > > Okay. I've fought my way through the code update and have recompiled > Analog. I see no evidence of 64-bit operating systems in my latest > logfile, which I know can't be right. I did the same with updating > Chris' code and had the same result. Is your update just for 64-bit > BROWSERS or am I being dumb?
As a useful debugging tool, to make sure that you're using your I didn't have any current log files available when I tested the update, so I just modified an existing one, adding " x64;" to the browser string on a few lines. (My interpretation of the posts earlier this week was that that was the main difference between the XP/XP64 and Vista/Vista64 browser strings). I'll try it against some real log files tonight. (I also just noticed that the 64-bit firefox browser string that I identified from a google search wouldn't have been picked up by a search for "; x64;"). It's not my intention to post a modified version of Analog - I just wanted to confirm that the change that I suggested would indeed allow you to count x64 browsers seperately from 32-bit browsers. But as you yourself confirmed, the x64 version of IE is "currently unusable", and the x64 version of Firefox isn't exactly mainstream, it's quite likely that you don't have any 64-bit browsers in your logs. Note that my code doesn't check for the "WOW64" identifier that would identify the 32-bit version on IE running on Vista 64. Aengus +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list: | http://lists.meer.net/mailman/listinfo/analog-help | | Analog Documentation: http://analog.cx/docs/Readme.html | List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives | Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general +------------------------------------------------------------------------
