Resizable palettes?

[Richard Gaskin]

When will palette windows honor the resizable property?

I've used the funky workaround of using a graphic as a growRegion, but there
are two non-standard issues with this approach:

1. The palette resizes dynamically, rather than just the outline as other
windows do.

2. The palette can only be resized using the growRegion graphic, as opposed
to the standard Windows behavior of being able to resize along window edges.

-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 Multimedia Design and Development for Mac, Windows, UNIX, and the Web
 _
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com
 Tel: 323-225-3717   ICQ#60248349Fax: 323-225-0716



Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Screen resolution

[ScottYang]

In a message dated 4/27/01 3:13:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< I'm considering a major rewrite of a program that would be greatly 
simplified if I didn't have to support 640x480 screen resolution.  Does 
anyone have a feel for what percentage of users still use 640x480?  I know 
this would mostly affect Mac users.

Philip >>

 I don't think most mac users use 640x480.  640x480 is now typically reserved 
for gaming.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Screen resolution

[Tereza Snyder]

Richard Gaskin  wrote:

> we feel
> pretty confident about designing for 800x600 for everything except some apps
> designed specifically for public education or other markets with a
> disproportionate percentage of older machines

Since public educators are the market for the company I work for, I proceed
in the opposite fashion: only a few higher-level administrative programs
require 800*600; any application designed for classroom use must accommodate
640*480.

tereza


Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

re automatically mailing stacks

[DVGlasgow]

In a message dated 24/4/01 6:45:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> TIA
>> 
>> David Glasgow
>
>Sure you can.
>
>Andu
>
No Andu, sure *you* can, not at all sure about me!  

So what is the final word on this?  Sockets scare the Hell out of me, and I 
kind of thought three lines of script using mailto, a click and said stack 
would be on its way. 

David G

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Menu Color?

[Scott Rossi]

Is it possible to change the backColor of an MC-drawn menu panel?

I assume the menu panel is a stack.  I tried setting the backColor of the
templateStack on mouseDown but this doesn't seem to have any effect.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Regards,

Scott

_
Scott Rossi   Tactile Media - Multimedia & Design
Creative Director Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Web: www.tactilemedia.com


Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: MetaCard 2.4A2 & libURL

[Kevin Miller]

On 26/4/01 2:41 pm, Scott Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> This maybe off topic a little:
>> Would it be better to start sharing of the libURL stack by default on 2.4?
>> This should offer a more transparent upgrade from 2.3 since URL support
>> available without the need to turn it on.
> 
> It does this automatically now, but only in the development
> environment (the main front script handles each message, starts
> using the stack, then passes the message).  It's technically
> possible to have the engine do this automatically, but I'm not
> sure if this is a good idea or not.  It would better preserve
> backward compatibility (though you will still have to move the
> library into your application with the Resource Mover), but
> means hard-coding the library name into the engine, making it
> impossible to ever rename it or for people to add their own
> libraries to handle certain types of URLs differently from
> others.  Which is more important?

The former.  We definately want to be able to rename, or add our own
libraries.  The latter is something that can be scripted *so* easily.  (E.g.
the Distribution Builder in Rev will do this - including inserting the
library automatically in the standalone with no coding required.)

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Runtime Revolution Limited - Power to the Developer!
Tel: +44 (0)131 718 4333.  Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707.


Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Screen resolution

[Richard Gaskin]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I'm considering a major rewrite of a program that would be greatly simplified
> if I didn't have to support 640x480 screen resolution.  Does anyone have a
> feel for what percentage of users still use 640x480?  I know this would mostly
> affect Mac users.

Last I heard, more than 50% are using 800x600, a fair number using larger,
and fewer than 6% are using 640x480.   I think there may be something at
MediaMetrix about this, but I've read the stats so many places that we feel
pretty confident about designing for 800x600 for everything except some apps
designed specifically for public education or other markets with a
disproportionate percentage of older machines (I've always liked this idea:
Wouldn't it be great if public education had all the money it needed and the
Pentagon had to hold a bake sale for a bomber).

-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 Multimedia Design and Development for Mac, Windows, UNIX, and the Web
 _
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com
 Tel: 323-225-3717   ICQ#60248349Fax: 323-225-0716



Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Screen resolution

[Phil Davis]

Here's a link to a "Golden Oldie" list message from Scott Rossi in
December 1999. It may help answer your question:

http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/msg01437.html

Phil Davis


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:32 AM
Subject: Screen resolution


> I'm considering a major rewrite of a program that would be greatly
simplified if I didn't have to support 640x480 screen resolution.
Does anyone have a feel for what percentage of users still use
640x480?  I know this would mostly affect Mac users.
>
> Philip
>
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
> Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
> Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
>


Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Screen resolution

[Kevin Miller]

On 26/4/01 4:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm considering a major rewrite of a program that would be greatly simplified
> if I didn't have to support 640x480 screen resolution.  Does anyone have a
> feel for what percentage of users still use 640x480?  I know this would mostly
> affect Mac users.

Very few.  We stopped supporting this resolution a long time ago (even for
end-user / consumer software) and have had virtually no complaints.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Runtime Revolution Limited - Power to the Developer!
Tel: +44 (0)131 718 4333.  Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707.


Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Screen resolution

[PEChumbley]

I'm considering a major rewrite of a program that would be greatly simplified if I 
didn't have to support 640x480 screen resolution.  Does anyone have a feel for what 
percentage of users still use 640x480?  I know this would mostly affect Mac users.

Philip

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: MetaCard 2.4A2 & libURL

[Scott Raney]

LiangTyan Fui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> This maybe off topic a little:
> Would it be better to start sharing of the libURL stack by default on 2.4?
> This should offer a more transparent upgrade from 2.3 since URL support
> available without the need to turn it on.

It does this automatically now, but only in the development
environment (the main front script handles each message, starts
using the stack, then passes the message).  It's technically
possible to have the engine do this automatically, but I'm not
sure if this is a good idea or not.  It would better preserve
backward compatibility (though you will still have to move the
library into your application with the Resource Mover), but
means hard-coding the library name into the engine, making it
impossible to ever rename it or for people to add their own
libraries to handle certain types of URLs differently from
others.  Which is more important?
   Regards,
 Scott

> Regards,
> LiangTyan Fui




Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Length of script problem

[Kevin Miller]

On 26/4/01 3:09 am, Andrew Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there a limit on script lengths?  I originally used
> HyperCard for my programming needs, but did not like
> the script length limitations.  I rememeber reading
> that MetaCard did not have a limit, yet when I apply
> my changes to my Card Script I get a message stating:
> "Your script is 67662 characters long and must have
> less then 65534 charcters."  With a "I'll shorten it."
> button.  
> 
> Is there a work around to this problem?  Can I
> increase the script length?
> 
> I'm using a licensed version of MetaCard 2.3.2.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!

This could be a bug: there is no length limit in 2.3.2.  But are you sure
you're using the 2.3.2 tools stack?

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Runtime Revolution Limited - Power to the Developer!
Tel: +44 (0)131 718 4333.  Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707.


Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.

Re: Length of script problem

[Michael Kann]

Just curious, what does a 67k Metatalk script do?
Could you break it up a little?

--- Andrew Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a limit on script lengths?  I originally
> used
> HyperCard for my programming needs, but did not like
> the script length limitations.  I rememeber reading
> that MetaCard did not have a limit, yet when I apply
> my changes to my Card Script I get a message
> stating: 
> "Your script is 67662 characters long and must have
> less then 65534 charcters."  With a "I'll shorten
> it."
> button.  
> 
> Is there a work around to this problem?  Can I
> increase the script length?  
> 
> I'm using a licensed version of MetaCard 2.3.2.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> 
> --Andrew Griffin

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.