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".
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 requ
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
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
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 dr
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 versi
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 (
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,
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 thin
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
ko
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 seem
11 matches
Mail list logo
