Phil wrote:
>>Not exactly true...
>>
>>http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5087678.html
>>'MICROSOFT EXTENDS SUPPORT FOR ITS JAVA MACHINE
>>
>>(Last modified: October 7, 2003, 3:50 AM PDT)
>>Microsoft will continue to support its Java virtual machine through
>> September 2004, a nine-month extension that
PHILLIP W BARAK schrieb:
- Original Message -
From: Miguel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum JVM
requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your feedback.
Proposal: drop support for old JVMs
---
PHILLIP W BARAK sent [2.46p gmt 2004 March 29 Monday] :
>- Original Message - From: timothy driscoll
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>'Microsoft will
>>>continue to support its Java virtual machine through September
>>>2004, a nine-month extension that will make it easier for
>>>customers to find su
- Original Message -
From: timothy driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 'Microsoft will
> >continue to support its Java virtual machine through September 2004,
> >a nine-month extension that will make it easier for customers to
> >find substitutes for the software...'
> >
> does the last MS JVM u
On Monday 29 March 2004 16:37, Miguel wrote:
> I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum JVM
> requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your feedback.
> Please give me your thoughts/concerns/feedback on this topic.
From a Linux platform point of view. No problem.
PHILLIP W BARAK sent [10.25a gmt 2004 March 29 Monday] :
>- Original Message - From: Miguel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum
>>JVM requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your
>>feedback.
>>
>>Proposal: drop support for ol
- Original Message -
From: Miguel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum JVM
> requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your feedback.
>
> Proposal: drop support for old JVMs
> ---
>
> I have put a
Miguel sent [5.52p gmt 2004 March 29 Monday] :
>>>I suggest that we develop some standard JavaScript (and/or code
>>>within the applet) which would warn users that they need to
>>>install the Sun Java Plugin when they try to load the JmolApplet.
>>>
>>that should not be difficult.
>
>I would be gr
Tim wrote:
>> MacOS 9 + IE (don't know which version)
>>
> IE 5 at least; not sure about 3 or 4.
OK
>> Some of these have limitations. For example, on MacOS 9 the
>> performance is very poor (old/interpreted JVM)
>>
> not bad at all in IE5, actually - but Netscape is hideous, you are
> correct.
Miguel sent [4.37p gmt 2004 March 29 Monday] :
> I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum JVM
> requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your feedback.
>
> Proposal: drop support for old JVMs
> ---
>
> I have put a tremendous amo
I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum JVM
requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your feedback.
Proposal: drop support for old JVMs
---
I have put a tremendous amount of energy into dealing with the quirky
behavior of some of
11 matches
Mail list logo
