I don't see the problem as relating to machines that LiveCode might be
deployed on, but as machines for which 32-bit
standalones might be authored.
My highly theoretical scenario runs a bit likes this;
A number of schools in what are coyly called "third world countries"
running old machines for content delivery; either in
schools or in, say, government offices.
An author of software for this scenario might have a 64-bit machine, but
would need the ability to export for the target market.
As there are very many fully-functional 32-bit machines (whether Macs or
IBM-compats) "out there" (and by "out there"
I mean outwith the slightly smug, self-satisfied circle of charmed
countries quite incorrectly termed "Western" - Australia, western? -)
that are being put to good purpose rather than clogging up landfills and
shafting the planet, this scenario does not seem
totally daft to me.
Admittedly, authors could use earlier versions of LiveCode that do
produce 32-bit standalones to deliver the goods
(I still use 4.5 for stuff I run on a couple of PPC Macs), but,
obviously, this cuts them off from new capabilities that will be built
into newer
versions.
Richmond.
On 6/8/17 11:07 pm, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
Microsoft suffered for years over backwards compatibility with DOS. MS wanted to move
forward with their OS at a quicker pace but there were so many "critical" apps
running under DOS that talked directly with the hardware, that no one wanted MS to
depricate it. Windows 95 was supposed to be the first version of Windows to break the
chain, but had to retain some functionality still. Even Windows 98 was still bound in
some ways with DOS.
The point is, you have the right to expect backwards compatibility... to a
point. Where is that point? Well let's see, how long ago did Apple stop
suporting 32 bit OS? As far as I am concerned, that is the point beyond which
backwards compatibility is gratis.
Bob S
On Jun 8, 2017, at 03:04 , Richmond via use-livecode
<use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they can be used
for good purposes.
Richmond.
On 08/06/17 09:19, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
On 2017-06-07 21:59, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
I disagree as there are plenty of Macs "out there" in the worldthat
run 32-bit systems.
Not that LiveCode supports.
Far better to have BOTH possibilities checked as default.
Only if there existed a Mac which can run LiveCode but cannot run 64-bit apps -
which is the case for LiveCode 9.x as it supports 10.9+.
Indeed it would be far better to have no possibility at all (simpler) - just
build for 64-bit since...
64-bit support has been around since 10.6, at that time there were machines
which could run 10.6 which were 32-bit only.
However, all macs which will run 10.7 will run 64-bit apps.
Therefore, if LiveCode only supports 10.7 and above, then LiveCode and any apps
you build with it need only be 64-bit.
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
