I'll take your 8.6 and raise you 7.6.1.
Not that that is much value in relation to this thread as Rev don't run that
far back.
Anyone need some HyperCard stacks tested ;-)
Thank you for the belly laugh! Made my day!
I do remember 7.5 and have a whole passel of Hypercard stacks
that
Kay C Lan wrote:
On 6/5/07, J. Landman Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have my original SE with two -- count 'em, two -- floppy drives for
that. It's running system 6-something, and it still works. :)
Well inline with the other thread about schools/people not upgrading when
they can. It wou
On 6/5/07, J. Landman Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have my original SE with two -- count 'em, two -- floppy drives for
that. It's running system 6-something, and it still works. :)
Well inline with the other thread about schools/people not upgrading when
they can. It would appear your SE
Kay C Lan wrote:
On 6/5/07, Shari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can go all the way back to OS 8.6 for testing :-)
I'll take your 8.6 and raise you 7.6.1.
Not that that is much value in relation to this thread as Rev don't run
that
far back.
Anyone need some HyperCard stacks tested ;-)
I
On 6/5/07, Shari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can go all the way back to OS 8.6 for testing :-)
I'll take your 8.6 and raise you 7.6.1.
Not that that is much value in relation to this thread as Rev don't run that
far back.
Anyone need some HyperCard stacks tested ;-)
__
I can go all the way back to OS 8.6 for testing :-) Actually, I
skipped from 8.6 to 10.2.8. Never even saw OS 9.
The first OSX's that Apple sold included OS 9 on the CD. But if you
waited if you didn't jump on the OSX bandwagon fast enough
you didn't get OS 9 bundled. I wasn't abou
I thought altBrowser was never supported on 10.2.8, only on 10.3 and later.
Microsoft did change things with the Speech API. Remember how SAPI 4
and SAPI 5 weren't compatible? You had to pick which DLL you ran for Rev.
Chipp Walters wrote:
On 6/4/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Just not a perfect world, Chipp. Should we consider going back to the
days of the Monroe Doctrine? Probably not, but it is sure tempting.
Even one on one relationships are dangerously unpredictable these
days; much less country to country. Sigh!
Joe Wilkins
On Jun 4, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Chi
On 6/4/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
never believing in my worst
of dreams that there would be significant differences between the
various OSX releases. Was I ever dumb!
Yep. One of the biggest hassles we had with altBrowser on Mac was how to
keep it working on older OSX
Jacqueline,
Thanks for pushing this up, its a nasty one for me. i really would
rather not have three apps for the mac with an os9, ox 10.1-2 and a
10.3-4. this would just confuse folks. really want to have and intel
ub since education stuff stick around and i expect by 10.6 intels
will no
You got it... basically what you have to deal with are these
roadblocks to upgrades
- cost of OS upgrade
- having someone who will install it (k-6 teachers tend not to like
to poke at their computers and many schools have no tech support or
one guy in the whole district to do it all, il
Joe Lewis Wilkins wrote:
Hi Jacque,
Any chance this went to the top of their list? Should have a number of
people with baited breath!
I'm sure it will be fixed, they know about it now. But someone with an
OS 10.2 machine should probably take a look when the next release comes
out. Won't be
Hi Jacque,
Any chance this went to the top of their list? Should have a number
of people with baited breath!
Your connections are great. Thanks.
Joe Wilkins
On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:44 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Jeff Reynolds wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] we just sent our cd out for replication, im
Great news. Thanks, Jacque (and Rev Team) :-)
On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:44 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Jeff Reynolds wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] we just sent our cd out for replication, im trying to put
a stop on it if possible. 10.1 and 10.2 ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL
IN THE SCHOOLS!
Urgh. I hope y
Jeff Reynolds wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] we just sent our cd out for replication, im trying to put a stop
on it if possible. 10.1 and 10.2 ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL IN THE
SCHOOLS!
Urgh. I hope you can stop it in time, really sorry to hear that.
I just asked the team about the problem, and they
For anyone who's interested, I did create bug #5109 for this issue.
Feel free to add your votes.
On Jun 3, 2007, at 9:26 AM, Shari wrote:
I've noticed a lot of software that requires 10.3.9 lately, I get
the feeling that was pretty much the cutoff these days.
By the way, thank you, Chris,
Jeff,
My condolences. Way back when I was beta testing my own software, I
kept several Macs "frozen in time" with old OSs. Unfortunately, this
kind of stopped with the advent of OSX; never believing in my worst
of dreams that there would be significant differences between the
various OSX
On 6/4/07, Jeff Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes you will say this is not right, but its
what you just have to deal with when working in the education market,
like it or not. just a fact of life you cant change. We have found
that a lot of home computers that have been handed down to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] we just sent our cd out for replication, im trying to put a
stop on it if possible. 10.1 and 10.2 ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL IN THE
SCHOOLS! This is a big problem for our product. We tested 10.3, and
10.4 on ppc and intel, but not 10.2 on ppc. I can still create a
10.1-10.2
You can upgrade any version of Mac OS to the current one (10.4) on
any computer that can run 10.4 by simply buying the current package
and installing it.
This is complicated only in a couple of ways:
1. Not all Macs can run 10.4. Essentially any Mac (except the
original iMac) that has bui
I've noticed a lot of software that requires 10.3.9 lately, I get
the feeling that was pretty much the cutoff these days.
By the way, thank you, Chris, for verifying that I wasn't crazy.
Much appreciated :-)
A little snippet in the help docs would have been very welcome, and
saved me much ag
Seems to, at least here. I'm running 10.3.9 on my Powerbook and 10.4
on my desktop Mac. I haven't had any trouble with any stacks in
10.3.9, and I was running 10.3.7 for a very long time with Rev
before that. I never had Rev 2.8.1 on my 10.3.7 machine but I know
2.7.4 worked okay.
I've notice
Shari, I agree, but I had a Mac Mini a year or so ago and Apple
continued to provide free updates for it all the way to - I think it
was 2.9, but may have been 2.8. because I stopped using it about a
month ago when I got my new MacIntel. I kind of wondered myself at
the length of the automa
Sarah Reichelt wrote:
On 6/3/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now this is something I think we need to worry about less than having
a "Classic" potential; since most people who have OSX are going to be
moving up to the latest due to the ease with which Apple makes
updating the O
Now this is something I think we need to worry about less than
having a "Classic" potential; since most people who have OSX are
going to be moving up to the latest due to the ease with which
Apple makes updating the OS. Or am I in the minority when I get
automatic updates from Apple on just ab
On 6/3/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now this is something I think we need to worry about less than having
a "Classic" potential; since most people who have OSX are going to be
moving up to the latest due to the ease with which Apple makes
updating the OS. Or am I in the minor
Now this is something I think we need to worry about less than having
a "Classic" potential; since most people who have OSX are going to be
moving up to the latest due to the ease with which Apple makes
updating the OS. Or am I in the minority when I get automatic updates
from Apple on jus
Jacque-
Friday, June 1, 2007, 12:06:47 PM, you wrote:
> Since you aren't using the Rev builder, you might want to take this over
> to the MC list. There are some special requirements for building
> standalones with the 2.7 + engine, and it may be that you haven't
> created a special standalone
One more update. Turns out a PPC standalone built with 2.8.1 does not
work either, which makes the issue even more serious. :-(
On Jun 1, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Chris Sheffield wrote:
Confirmed! UBs built with 2.8.1 *do not* run under OS X 10.2.x. But
one built with 2.8.0 does. At least in my tes
Confirmed! UBs built with 2.8.1 *do not* run under OS X 10.2.x. But
one built with 2.8.0 does. At least in my testing. What changed? If
no one else has, I'll submit this as a bug. It's a nasty one.
Chris
On Jun 1, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Chris Sheffield wrote:
I'm wondering if there's a problem
I'm wondering if there's a problem with the 2.8.1 engine. Other non-
Rev universal apps I have (installers, for example) run perfectly
fine under 10.2.x. And I'm almost positive that standalones built
with previous Rev engines have run fine for me. I'm going to double
check this though.
Ch
Shari wrote:
Just in case anybody else searches the archives with the same questions,
here is the latest update on creating standalones for Mac OSX prior to
10.3.x.
I couldn't do it with MC 2.8.1 on my Macintel, even using the PPC
engine. I couldn't do it with MC 2.8.1 on the G-3, even u
Just in case anybody else searches the archives with the same
questions, here is the latest update on creating standalones for Mac
OSX prior to 10.3.x.
I couldn't do it with MC 2.8.1 on my Macintel, even using the PPC
engine. I couldn't do it with MC 2.8.1 on the G-3, even using the
PPC
Shari wrote:
After a couple of hours of reading old archived posts dating back a
couple years I came across one tiny tidbit that may explain why the UB
standalone fails to launch on my G-3.
Can anyone verify this? Nowhere in the docs of either Revolution or
Metacard could I find a mention of
After a couple of hours of reading old archived posts dating back a
couple years I came across one tiny tidbit that may explain why the
UB standalone fails to launch on my G-3.
Can anyone verify this? Nowhere in the docs of either Revolution or
Metacard could I find a mention of this. I did
35 matches
Mail list logo
