[quote=231864:@Norman Palardy]2006 etc making single file exe’s will occasionally experience weird crashes that you wont be able to track down.
This has to do with how they work, Windows shims and a few other bits that, when single file exe’s were discontinued, were explained in depth by Aaron Ballman.
But that was done nearly 7 years ago[/quote]
Norm, boy seeing your name really brings back memories, along with Aaron Ballman and Thomas Tempelmann, and a whole lots of others. It probably wouldn’t be going to far to say most of what I accomplished in RB was based on the explanations I read from your collective tips and explanations.
I did already discover that tip, and to some degree it lessened the distro issues in the areas where I distribute to closed groups who already have other programs I wrote. Good tip to pass on though, others may not have known it.
I never did have the issue you describe sent back to me from any of my 5 and 06 projects, current or past, a few having been in solid known every day use for a tad over a decade. I don’t doubt it could happen though, I’ll take your word for it, I’ve never seen your statements prove out bad. I must have been out of class when Aaron explained it.
The size issue for me is, as I pointed out at least once up there, is only tertiary in the issues I personally have with the IDE and the way it has gone. As far as issues go, it would not alone stop me from using the newer IDEs, unless it really became egregious, like the early days of .net before it was installed everywhere (post 2 up there, I think). That was the main reason I started looking at RB all those years ago, in fact, I couldn’t see asking someone to go through the hassle of downloading / installing the .net framework just to run a program. RB 5 was an ideal solution, thank you very much ! '06 even more so, thank you AGAIN.
I can’t really speak to '07 → up, I never looked into them, since I didn’t have a requirement for them. I understand from a software producing company point of view, that that isn’t particularly good for the dinner plate, but from a customer pov, I think it is great that one product literally covered my needs for a solid 5 years. I sure try to build my own apps that way, in large part due to those IDEs it was easy to do.
2012 came along and I heard that pictures going into dbs’ was now a built in function, instead of a work around. Pony up to the bar boys! and I did. Now we are at the place where I had real primary and secondary issues. The first system I ran RB2012 on (where I ran all my dev stuff), it started up fine (speed covered), but it crashed 4 times in an hour. Hm.
I setup a clean system / os install, and tried it again. It was erratic to say the least. might run for 10 mins, might run an hour. I don’t think I got it to run longer than that. Tried it in a VM on another box (thinking hey, most generic kind of platform possible right? ) Didn’t work any better there. After a week or so, I figured it wasn’t worth the effort, 5 and '06 were workable and rock steady.
Company changed the name. Actually gave me something of a fright, wasn’t sure initially if it had been sold (like the really early days) or what. 2013 came out. I bought it. Nice to have the ability to dev for all 3 desktops without having to shell out top dollar, certainly crashed less than 2012, BONUS ! Unfortunately, after more than say, 6 controls were on a form, it started to slow down in responsiveness. No local help reference file? Why is it throwing an error when trying to go to the language reference on Linux? The more complicated the application, the less responsive the IDE became.
2014 came out. I got it. If possible, its responsiveness is even worse than 2013s, and that would have taken some doing. It wasn’t as selective as 2013, though, it is slow to respond on ALL the boxes I have, regardless of the os, chipset, or any other hardware related issues.
I have to admit, I haven’t tried 2015 yet, but then I doubt I am the primary kind of customer Xojo is targeting. I was when 5 and '06 came out.
Now, I sure don’t want to sound like I’m shooting off just to rain bricks down, and I apologize if that is how it sounds. I don’t begrudge the way the company went, just as I wouldn’t want to have someone else take me to task if My plans didn’t go just the way they hoped they would. It isn’t my company. I would listen, then make my decisions, just as I’m sure you consider, then decide.
I am ABSOLUTELY not asking for you, Xojo, or anyone else to go backwards, please do not take it that way.
All that is new I don’t by any means consider bad either. As I say, dev ability for 3 major systems without the original overhead is nice. When I don’t absolutely need it, I have previous products to fall back on. The new layout, not too bad at all. Certainly far more controls available than when I first came to the park to play 
And, after being told for a long time that being able to change the text color on a button was nearly impossible, WHOA, the newer IDEs let you do just that ! Almost makes me think I wasted my time figuring out how to do it without sub-classing the canvas control. (Almost )
You have a lot of my respect, I certainly hope we part this discussion friends, or at least not combatants
…and I think that is what should take up the bulk of a users storage requirements, their personal files if your developing for general consumption. My learning period was spent dev’ing for the oldest existing platforms, or embedded ones, space much like the top poster originally put it, that space isn’t mine to consume.
If it helps put my opinions into perspective, I still dev to those types of standards, even when I am thinking of putting it out for the general public. When I am not, I have to dev to those standards, since the space simply isn’t there for my programs to be as bloated as possible.
Often times the 1 or 2 extra megs in size won’t kill the project, but when the choice is the extra megs or a svelter size, guess which is going to win that debate? Sometimes speed and expediency allows me to factor that against the size, but I’d rather not have that discussion to begin with.
[quote=231866:@Michel Bujardet]I rather have a true bundle for my Windows app like I have in Mac, including a real Resources folder unlike the past hacky-patchy older way embedding, and up to date stable Windows 10 technology, than nostalgic legacy executables. At a time when soon Microsoft will provide a way to turn Win32 apps in New API (formerly “Metro”) Universal Windows Apps AppX, I rather look to the future than bask in the past.[/quote] I’ll leave my views about the above for another discussion 
Agreed 500%, we have no beef far as I know 
Beatrix, I really don’t what to tell you, I’ve written what I consider to be some pretty heavy duty software in my time, but the only time I came close to that size was an early attempt at an OS. Since the programming world is so filled with diversity, all I can say is more power to you.
You can always use a version or two previous of Xojo to compile your application, which uses the old framework (still just as powerful), and render a smaller compiled application if it’s truly necessary. For personal software or systems you have some control over packers can save much disk space and very useful. The options are great to learn about though. Stick to Norman’s advice though and compile and distribute at ‘normal’ size. ****(Don’t forget to digitally sign the end result or your software will prompt ‘untrusted source’ when a user attempts to run the EXE… that’s a UAC Windows protection issue.) For every solution, a dozen problems can occur. Find the solution that’s best for each situation as a whole.
