RunRev minimum requirements [was: Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:55:32 -0600, curry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] (6. And this should be parenthetical because it is not the issue--this is not about my personal computing happiness or me holding out on 10.1. My intent is to make apps for others and I want to know that the minimum requirements I list are accurate. I would rather (if I can afford it) have the latest system on a new computer than to upgrade this one. Okay? :-) No need to worry about me personally, I'll be fine and I could upgrade if I choose, but that wouldn't solve this issue at all, in fact it would make it worse in the big picture, as far as Rev's compatibility is concerned. This is not about me, but about Rev and the apps we make with it.) Curry, FWIW when I had an issue with RunRev on Windows 98 I got some similar responses - one of which pointed out that Microsoft itself had abandoned the OS - but I knew that there were many people out there wanting to use my stuff that were still using W98 and likely to continue for some time. What I think RR might perhaps do is to give developers (us) some pre-warning of their intention to drop an old OS or an old minimum system requirement like RAM or screen size - saying for example you've got 6 months to persuade your customers to upgrade. This could be useful from a marketing point of view, I think. Graham PS Dan wrote: Just my two farthings. (What the heck is a farthing? I'm American. What do I know?) Sadly, even we Brits don't know what farthings are any more. You used to get them in change when you bought a loaf of bread when I was young (the price was fixed by the government), but farthings went the way of all flesh when we decimalised in 1971. Graham Samuel / The Living Fossil Co. / UK and France ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: RunRev minimum requirements [was: Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1]
Yes, and I know I brought up the issue some time ago with respect to the educational community, in which Win 98 or even Win95 can be a deployment issue. I had to deploy my master's project stack on old Windows with I think something like either 32 or 64 MG RAM. Tops. As in, extremely painful. (and this was higher ed!) Now, I don't have some funny insistence that Rev support Win 3.11 or Mac OS 6.x, but I'd like to have some sorts of heads-up that, 'while Win98 is supported, you'll wish that it wasn't' advice. ;-) Judy On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, graham samuel wrote: Curry, FWIW when I had an issue with RunRev on Windows 98 I got some similar responses - one of which pointed out that Microsoft itself had abandoned the OS - but I knew that there were many people out there wanting to use my stuff that were still using W98 and likely to continue for some time. What I think RR might perhaps do is to give developers (us) some pre-warning of their intention to drop an old OS or an old minimum system requirement like RAM or screen size - saying for example you've got 6 months to persuade your customers to upgrade. This could be useful from a marketing point of view, I think. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
absolutely do the upgrade.. You might want to wait until tiger is out though tom On Feb 23, 2005, at 9:59 PM, James Cass wrote: I'm using Rev 2.0.3 and I was going to try out Rev 2.5, but it crashes on OSX 10.1. Are you not even using 10.1.5? Man, you really need to at least move to Jaguar (MacOSX 10.2.8). It is a highly regarded opinion that 10.1 had lots of problems that were finally fixed by 10.2. That's my two kopeks. -James On Feb 23, 2005, at 9:06 PM, curry wrote: I'm using Rev 2.0.3 and I was going to try out Rev 2.5, but it crashes on OSX 10.1. This leads me to assume that there must be no beta testers for Rev with 10.1--because the same thing happened with Rev 2.1, I reported a crash and it was later fixed. But 10.1 is officially supported, so it seems like a 10.1 beta tester is needed, otherwise this could happen every release. It needs to be checked in beta so that the release will work, otherwise it'll always be behind on 10.1 compatibility. Curry ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution Thomas J. McGrath III SCS 1000 Killarney Dr. Pittsburgh, PA 15234 412-885-8541 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
Curry That was a very clear post. I appreciated it. I suspect RR would be better off NOT trying to claim support for OS X prior to at least 10.1.5 and perhaps not before 10.2. I haven't seen any figures lately, but I don't think there are a lot of everyday Mac users out there running a version prior to 10.2 given all the publicized issues there were with 10.1. Just my two farthings. (What the heck is a farthing? I'm American. What do I know?) Dan ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
It's hard to believe, and a bit troubling, that the majority of responses to my report about Rev 2.5 crashing on OS 10.1 have been suggestions for me to upgrade. I'm sure this is meant well, but it's not relevant. When I posted that I thought surely this is obvious enough to need no long and drawn-out explanation, but okay, here goes: 1. Rev is officially supported on 10.1. It's supposed to work on 10.1. See the requirements quoted below. 2. Rev crashes on 10.1 (my version is 10.1.3), this officially supported OS version. 3. This is a bug (a critical one)-- and it's now #2632 in the Bugzilla database. 4. RunRev co. evidently wants Rev to work on the supported range, including 10.1; I previously submitted bug # 450, about Rev 2.1 crashing. They appreciated the report and fixed the problem. (Kudos to them--I think it's great that they support it and fixed it.) 5. However, the problem is that the testing and fixing on 10.1 is happening too late--as long as this range is continued to be supported, it should be checked in alpha/beta with 10.1 so that the finals are in good shape. That was the main idea of my post here--Rev needs beta testing with 10.1. That's the point. I think I did try out a 2.5 preview, and it didn't crash. But right about that time I got really busy with other things and didn't have time to keep up with Rev stuff for a while, so I didn't keep testing them. I'm coming back to spend more time with Rev now, but I only have access to public betas. (6. And this should be parenthetical because it is not the issue--this is not about my personal computing happiness or me holding out on 10.1. My intent is to make apps for others and I want to know that the minimum requirements I list are accurate. I would rather (if I can afford it) have the latest system on a new computer than to upgrade this one. Okay? :-) No need to worry about me personally, I'll be fine and I could upgrade if I choose, but that wouldn't solve this issue at all, in fact it would make it worse in the big picture, as far as Rev's compatibility is concerned. This is not about me, but about Rev and the apps we make with it.) Curry http://revolution.runrev.com/section/requirements.php For the development environment: Mac OS X 10.0.3 or later Memory: 128MB total Disk space: 50MB available For compiled applications: Mac OS X (any version) ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
Recently, curry wrote: It's hard to believe, and a bit troubling, that the majority of responses to my report about Rev 2.5 crashing on OS 10.1 have been suggestions for me to upgrade. I'm sure this is meant well, but it's not relevant. When I posted that I thought surely this is obvious enough to need no long and drawn-out explanation One question that would be worth asking is, do the Rev folks in fact support 10.1, or is the 10.0.3 a holdover spec that fell through the cracks as the Rev engine and the Rev Web site have been updated. It may be that they don't officially support it. As far as the suggestions to upgrade go, the responses may not be relevant but are based on the fact that system 10.1 and versions thereabouts are often unstable, unreliable, buggy, or at the least in a state of transition. It's not that folks don't care Rev support here, it's the fact that no one wants to work on an outdated version of the OS where you can't be sure about what is crashing what. I personally agree with you that provided support should follow stated support, but how do plan to answer users of your software when they complain about crashes that are due to the OS and not your programming? At a certain point, there is threshold to cross when supporting a previous OS is just not worth the time and effort. If that is the case here, the Rev guys should of course acknowledge the fact in the specs. But it sounds like you've entered a bug report so they may be on this. Best Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
Scott Rossi wrote: Recently, curry wrote: It's hard to believe, and a bit troubling, that the majority of responses to my report about Rev 2.5 crashing on OS 10.1 have been suggestions for me to upgrade. I'm sure this is meant well, but it's not relevant. When I posted that I thought surely this is obvious enough to need no long and drawn-out explanation One question that would be worth asking is, do the Rev folks in fact support 10.1, or is the 10.0.3 a holdover spec that fell through the cracks as the Rev engine and the Rev Web site have been updated. It may be that they don't officially support it. They would be in good company. It seems a majority of apps list their system req's as 10.2 or later. OS X 10.1 was a very buggy beta. ;) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
I'm using Rev 2.0.3 and I was going to try out Rev 2.5, but it crashes on OSX 10.1. This leads me to assume that there must be no beta testers for Rev with 10.1--because the same thing happened with Rev 2.1, I reported a crash and it was later fixed. But 10.1 is officially supported, so it seems like a 10.1 beta tester is needed, otherwise this could happen every release. It needs to be checked in beta so that the release will work, otherwise it'll always be behind on 10.1 compatibility. Curry ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
I'm using Rev 2.0.3 and I was going to try out Rev 2.5, but it crashes on OSX 10.1. Are you not even using 10.1.5? Man, you really need to at least move to Jaguar (MacOSX 10.2.8). It is a highly regarded opinion that 10.1 had lots of problems that were finally fixed by 10.2. That's my two kopeks. -James On Feb 23, 2005, at 9:06 PM, curry wrote: I'm using Rev 2.0.3 and I was going to try out Rev 2.5, but it crashes on OSX 10.1. This leads me to assume that there must be no beta testers for Rev with 10.1--because the same thing happened with Rev 2.1, I reported a crash and it was later fixed. But 10.1 is officially supported, so it seems like a 10.1 beta tester is needed, otherwise this could happen every release. It needs to be checked in beta so that the release will work, otherwise it'll always be behind on 10.1 compatibility. Curry ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
On Feb 23, 2005, at 7:59 PM, James Cass wrote: I'm using Rev 2.0.3 and I was going to try out Rev 2.5, but it crashes on OSX 10.1. Are you not even using 10.1.5? I have a 10.1.5 that I test Rev against when I feel inclined. Curry, I guess you have to be the 10.1 beta tester. (Personally, I think it should be formally tested on all advertised platforms in alpha, or at least the scope and places in between.) Dar -- ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting Dar's Lab) http://www.swcp.com/dsc/ Programming Services and Software ** ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1
Take a look at the official RunRev operating system requirements. It's *supposed* to work with 10.1. You don't think it's any big deal when the listed requirements don't match? Just upgrade as often as necessary? If I upgraded, then I wouldn't know the difference, wouldn't I? (And apparently, RunRev co. wouldn't know either.) So listing minimum requirements would be completely meaningless. I'm using Rev to make apps for others, not just for myself. I want to know that what I list is the real thing and works, not just make a wild guess. Curry -- James Cass wrote: Are you not even using 10.1.5? Man, you really need to at least move to Jaguar (MacOSX 10.2.8). It is a highly regarded opinion that 10.1 had lots of problems that were finally fixed by 10.2. That's my two kopeks. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
