I can’t agree with that. The latest release on Windows is rock solid & fast.
[quote=129348:@Andre Kuiper]The only things i see from Xojo staf and ceo are negative remarks about Windows and Linux and praise of Mac.
That’s the reason why i stopped renewing a year ago.[/quote]
The constant saying that Mac is better from a lot of people is sometimes quite annoying, I agree. Prejudice and ignorance should have no place when it comes to a cross platform tool. It is especially ridiculous when it comes from Xojo current or former employees who should refrain from demeaning their customers.
As for stopping renewal, I should admit that apart from the very real fix of the copy/paste in 2014R2.1, I cannot see much difference between versions. If I had not purchased the Pro license, I probably would have not renewed either for a product that appears pretty motionless.
A pity when Geoff said back in 2013 that they were looking into .NET to resolve the flickering issue.
Well, I hope they have not abandoned the idea to make Xojo on par with VB. As it stands today, it is starting to look a bit stale.
Andre is right.
Xojo works faster on my Macbook Pro. Slow under Linux.
@Wayne Golding
I have no problem with the solidity, from the first release of Xojo, i had little to no problems with stability. Ok some annoying bugs , but i could live with that. But the layout editor is close to unusable because of the slowlyness, it stutters like mad and while adding a component from the library , the component travels about two inch behind the the mousecursor and if there are ten or twenty components on the page/window positioning is a disaster.
[quote=129351:@Michel Bujardet]The constant saying that Mac is better from a lot of people is sometimes quite annoying, I agree. Prejudice and ignorance should have no place when it comes to a cross platform tool. It is especially ridiculous when it comes from Xojo current or former employees who should refrain from demeaning their customers.
As for stopping renewal, I should admit that apart from the very real fix of the copy/paste in 2014R2.1, I cannot see much difference between versions. If I had not purchased the Pro license, I probably would have not renewed either for a product that appears pretty motionless.
A pity when Geoff said back in 2013 that they were looking into .NET to resolve the flickering issue.
Well, I hope they have not abandoned the idea to make Xojo on par with VB. As it stands today, it is starting to look a bit stale.[/quote]
Michel as allways, you have worded it better than i ever could! Thanks!
I use Windows almost exclusively, only go to OSX for compiles, but all of my code work is in Windows. From a stability viewpoint, they have addressed a huge number of broken/annoying issues on Window, it is now very stable and solid. Not perfect, but light years ahead of where it was a year ago. I am not sure what system you are on, but I am on a 3+ year old Dell laptop, decent video card, but nothing spectacular, 8 GB, 256 GB SSD, Win 7 64-bit, and it is pretty snappy in my opinion. I don’t have a huge project, but it is more or less mid-range in size. I never even think about performance, just seems to work very well, IMO. Is it possible it has something to do with your particular setup?
My setup is an Acer core i5 laptop, 4gb ram, ssd drive, Debian 7.6.
Linux I have no idea about, never tried it, although I have heard certain distributions are pretty sluggish. I was more so referring to Andre about Windows.
Just to put some perspective on this a .Net framework is a job much like creating the Cocoa framework
Its not a “flip the switch & its done” kind of job
And, looking into it is not the same as actually devoting resources to it
We need more big things to tackle right now like we need a hole in our heads 
4Gb RAM total ?
Makes me wonder how much is left usable for apps once everything is loaded.
If its < 2Gb and you run other software at the same time then you’re probably swapping to disk like mad and regardless of it being an SSD this will make things slow. While an SSD is much quicker than a spinning platter in and HD its still slower than RAM and the more you have to swap the worse performance gets.
If you open terminal and run top as you run Xojo what does it show ?
There should be a line like
VM: 396G vsize, 1026M framework vsize, 10614628(1) pageins, 0(0) pageouts
You want page ins & page outs to be very low numbers
[quote=129366:@Norman Palardy]Just to put some perspective on this a .Net framework is a job much like creating the Cocoa framework
Its not a “flip the switch & its done” kind of job
And, looking into it is not the same as actually devoting resources to it[/quote]
Did I say I wanted it for yesterday ? I just wrote I hoped you had not abandoned the idea. I know implementing a new framework is no small task. I see iOS being far more strategic and requiring a lot of resources to happen. I also know modifying the Mac OS X version to extirpate Quicktime and QT Kit was no small accomplishment last year.
As you know, I have no prejudice whatsoever against Mac or Windows, or Linux for that matter, and use all three Xojo versions with equal pleasure. But I cannot help to feel kind of a pinch comparing the fact that Cocoa was completely implemented a while ago on the Mac OS X side, while .NET on the Windows side does not even seem planned. After all, .NET is going on 15 years and has been part of VB since 2002. I love Xojo, but frankly if I was developing mainly on Windows I would have to seriously question that state of fact.
And .NET is not the end of the road on the Windows side. Since Windows 8, a new API exists for Windows Store applications that may or may not be ideal, but is here. Curiously, whenever I mentioned it, reactions ranged from immediate dismissal to plain contempt. Granted, the Metro interface may not be an all out landslide, but it is what welcomes users on every new machine sold today. It is also what powers applications sold on the Windows Store. A tad of polite interest would not be out of order, or would it ?
The Windows world may be a subject of contempt for die hard Mac fanatics, fact remains Xojo best asset is it’s cross platform abilities. I am sick and tired of periodic flame wars between ignorants of either side, shouting at each other. Like it or not, MY business is not to waive little flags along Apple motorcade, or communion with adepts of the sect, but to sell as much software as I can to as many customers as possible. And Windows happens to have over 58% of the market and Mac only 4.37%, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
I am happy to see Xojo go for the 15.14% of iOS market, surely growing. But it should not mean leaving Windows to the side.
Windows 8.1 64 bits
AMD Phenom II 6 core 3.2 Ghz
8 Gb memory (low latency)
dual video card most used: AMD Radeon HD5670 1Gb dedicated memory resolution 1920 x 1080
160 Gb Intel SSD
1 Tb HD
So not top of the bill but not slow either. All software i use is fast and snappy only the layout editor of Xojo is a disaster. Even 3d cad programs are snappy.
Therefore i don’t think it has anything to do with the setup of my pc.
According to this article the different versions of Windows have 91 % of the desktop market and OSX only 7 % and for the server market it’s all Linux and Windows.
And Michel, again i 100% agree with your explanation above!
You are right, I had taken the web usage statistics. Sorry. My point is even reinforced by that correction, though.
Well not with the hardware, that looks reasonable enough, but certainly something to do with your PC. If it were Xojo, we’d see a lot more reports of this. I wonder if it could have something to do with Windows 8.1? I thought I recall another post mentions 8.1 issues. I have 8.1 in a VM on my MBP, I’ll fire my main project up on it later tonight and see how it behaves. I have some screens with 40+ UI components, I’ll see how if it is sluggish there.
Running in a VM is not the same as running the OS natively. Maybe that’s why you don’t experience the same issues as those that run the OS natively.
I don’t normally run in a VM, I said I would try it in a VM tonight. But my bigger point was I don’t see a lot of Windows users complaining about the performance of the IDE like they I see on a lot of the Linux Distros.
If anything it should perform better natively
The can be graphics issues when the VM is on OS X since OS X natively double buffers.
The VM engine may also take advantage of this and so issues on native hard ware may not be seen on the VM.
I can vouch for this behavior occurring.
But a VM shouldn’t be performing better than a native machine.
This may or may not be true depending on the device, and the operations on that device, that is being emulated by the vm. That’s because virtual machines can only emulate the hardware abstraction layer of the guest OS. It does the best it can to emulate it, but some process on the host may be more optimized and therefore work better in the vm than in it would natively. Conversely, some emulations by the host may be much less optimized, and perform less efficiently than it would natively. I think we both agree that, in any case, VM’s are not good for testing the performance of hardware (graphics adapters, network adapter, serial ports, usb ports, etc.) and their device drivers. At best, they are only good for testing general functionality and running applications specific to guest OSes.
[quote=129369:@Norman Palardy]4Gb RAM total ?
Makes me wonder how much is left usable for apps once everything is loaded.
If its < 2Gb and you run other software at the same time then you’re probably swapping to disk like mad and regardless of it being an SSD this will make things slow. While an SSD is much quicker than a spinning platter in and HD its still slower than RAM and the more you have to swap the worse performance gets.
If you open terminal and run top as you run Xojo what does it show ?
There should be a line like
VM: 396G vsize, 1026M framework vsize, 10614628(1) pageins, 0(0) pageouts
You want page ins & page outs to be very low numbers[/quote]
Right now, I have 2GB free, 0 swap used. So I have plenty of RAM.