i have not successfully compiled a single program in r2 vs r1. There are so many fatal errors I lost count. So I just threw r2 away and returned to r1. MLR
---------------------------------------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: gettingstarted Digest, Vol 27, Issue 21 > To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:00:11 -0500 > > When replying to digests: > - edit your Subject line - be specific! > - quote only the message parts you need to > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (Phil M) > 2. Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (Keith Bennett) > 3. RE: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (RBNUBE) > 4. RE: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (RBNUBE) > 5. Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (John Sunderland) > 6. Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (Norman Palardy) > 7. Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (John Sunderland) > 8. RE: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (Joseph) > 9. Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade (Norman Palardy) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: Phil M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:04:29 -0700 > > On Jun 19, 2006, at 9:43 PM, RBNUBE wrote: > > > I've just recently been told that I have a limited time (until June > > 28) to save $50 by purchasing an upgrade "subscription" to RB. > > This would be an upgrade from RB2005r4 to RB2006r2. > > > > I am one of the people on the side of the fence that doesn't > > particularly like the 2005-2006 interface and I find the bugs too > > annoying in 2005r4 and below to actually use it. I can deal with > > the interface, I suppose, but I'm not sure about the bugs and IDE > > sluggishness. > > > > My question is: Is it worth it to purchase the upgrade now, or > > should I wait until RB2007? Are many of you still having a lot of > > trouble? > > > > Haven't heard anything lately, so I'm wondering if most of the bugs > > have been ironed out. > > Have you looked at the advantages vs. disadvantages in the new version > (s)? Compared to 5.5, just the feature advantages are significant, > and the cost is mostly all IDE glitches... I learned a long time ago > (way before I used REALbasic) to save early and often and that has > brought me through 2005r1 and all of the newer releases without me > wanting to revert back to 5.5. > > I hear users needing to upgrade to 2.0 GB just so that REALbasic > feels snappy, but I have never experienced this sluggishness in my > own projects. Now I admit that my projects are usually quite small > (source code is usually less than 1 MB), but I am also running a > number of other memory-hog apps (like Illustrator and Photoshop) as > well as iTunes, Safari, Mail and other various apps. I am sure that > it would be faster if I maxed my machine with memory, but I haven't > felt that I need to do so just to be productive. > > Besides Universal Binaries are promised by the end of the year, and > your upgrade subscription would be valid for several months into 2007. > > > ================================================== > > Message: 2 > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: "Keith Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:04:51 -0500 > > I've used both REALbasic 2005 and 2006. I can tell you that REALbasic 2006 > is a *LOT* more stable: I've actually been able to build a medium project > with only one or two minor problems and one major one (it seems like strings > received from a socket can get f***ed up in a tight loop... somehow > reordering the incoming data...). If you're not working with sockets, I > highly recommend upgrading. Although, the Language Reference for 2006 still > leaves a lot to be desired. > > > On 6/19/06, RBNUBE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've just recently been told that I have a limited time (until June 28) to > > save $50 by purchasing an upgrade "subscription" to RB. This would be an > > upgrade from RB2005r4 to RB2006r2. > > > > I am one of the people on the side of the fence that doesn't particularly > > like the 2005-2006 interface and I find the bugs too annoying in 2005r4 > > and > > below to actually use it. I can deal with the interface, I suppose, but > > I'm > > not sure about the bugs and IDE sluggishness. > > > > My question is: Is it worth it to purchase the upgrade now, or should I > > wait until RB2007? Are many of you still having a lot of trouble? > > > > Haven't heard anything lately, so I'm wondering if most of the bugs have > > been ironed out. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > WinXp SP2, 2GHz, 2G RAM > > RB 5.5.5 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > > > > > -- > Keith Bennett, tA-Kane > Software developer and Macintosh enthusiast > > Free iPods!!! > http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=10867472 > > ================================================== > > Message: 3 > Subject: RE: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: "RBNUBE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:06:11 -0400 > > >This, and UB if it arrives, will likely be the > >deciding factor to my re-subbing. > > Sorry for my ignorance, but what is UB? > > > > > ================================================== > > Message: 4 > Subject: RE: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: "RBNUBE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:09:56 -0400 > > Ahhh....universal binaries. Duh...sorry. > > > > ================================================== > > Message: 5 > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: "John Sunderland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:29:17 +0100 > > Pardon my ignorance, what is a binary if it isn't universal? > > Bernard > > > Ahhh....universal binaries. Duh...sorry. > > > > > > > ================================================== > > Message: 6 > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: Norman Palardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:19:51 -0600 > > > On Jun 20, 2006, at 4:29 AM, John Sunderland wrote: > > > Pardon my ignorance, what is a binary if it isn't universal? > > Bernard > > Because OS X runs on PowerPC and Intel chips a program would actually > need two different binaries to run on them > A Universal Binary is a way, on OS X , to ship a program that can run > on either kind of chip > > If it's not Universal (ie/ native for the chip it's installed on) it > may run in a mode where the PowerPC instructions are translated, on > the fly, to Intel ones > > > ================================================== > > Message: 7 > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: "John Sunderland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:46:37 +0100 > > > > >> Pardon my ignorance, what is a binary if it isn't universal? > > > > Because OS X runs on PowerPC and Intel chips a program would actually > > need two different binaries to run on them > > Thanks for the explanation. So am I understanding correctly that 'binary' no > longer refers to a number base but is now shorthand for binary instruction > code which we used to call, without ambiguity, 'machine code'? > > Bernard > > > > > ================================================== > > Message: 8 > Subject: RE: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:53:08 -0500 > > Sure why not... We're all using REALbasic. For those of use that used to > use real BASIC (gosubs, gotos, and line numbers) it seems like a rather > mistitled brand name. My TI-99/4A would certainly beg to differ. > > ~joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > Sunderland > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:47 AM > To: Getting Started > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > Thanks for the explanation. So am I understanding correctly that 'binary' no > longer refers to a number base but is now shorthand for binary instruction > code which we used to call, without ambiguity, 'machine code'? > > Bernard > > > ================================================== > > Message: 9 > Subject: Re: RB 2005r4 to RB2006r2 upgrade > From: Norman Palardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:30:30 -0600 > > > On Jun 20, 2006, at 9:46 AM, John Sunderland wrote: > > > > > > >>> Pardon my ignorance, what is a binary if it isn't universal? > >> > >> Because OS X runs on PowerPC and Intel chips a program would > >> actually need two different binaries to run on them > > > > Thanks for the explanation. So am I understanding correctly that > > 'binary' no longer refers to a number base but is now shorthand for > > binary instruction code which we used to call, without ambiguity, > > 'machine code'? > > > > Bernard > > Yes. A 'binary" is what people use to refer to a compiled executable > in many cases, often meaning a compiled binary. > This is different from the "source" versions you often get from open > source software. > > ================================================== > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > > End of gettingstarted Digest, Vol 27, Issue 21 > ********************************************** _______________________________________________ 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>
