While I do 99.99% Mac only work, I do have some clients who use t’other platform, “Doors” I think it’s called? (10 points for the reference). So it’s not entirely selfless 
I’d find Tim Jones posts as he has posted some info regarding graphics cards & their impact
At the very least we need it as a deployment target - certainly for Web Edition.
And if we claim to be able to build an app for it then why would the IDE NOT be a good test bed for supporting such a claim ?
To be honest Linux doesn’t consume a ton of resources except occasionally - when we have weird issues like when Ubuntu changed to Unity and they made some other changes related to the proxy menu.
Most distros things just work as expected and we’re doing tweaks as opposed to complete overhauls of the framework.
WHOA ! Stop right there. .Net is not “complacently put on the back burner” as you put it.
I’m actually kind of insulted by that characterization.
The reality is we have iOS, 64 bit, LLVM and new frameworks ALREADY ongoing & adding yet another large task (a new .Net framework) is simply asking for more problems.
So we’re working on things in the order we need to.
EVERY business has to prioritize & in order to do anything with .Net we need 64 bit and LLVM done BEFORE we can do .Net
Otherwise its a waste of effort to build a .Net framework for the OLD compiler using an old compiler, linker etc.
We’d literally have to redo it as soon as the new compiler was done which just doubles the effort needlessly.
We HAVE to set priorities as no business can do everything all at once.
Surely the outcome of the OP should be done away with in the EULA. I would say running and using code as a functional piece of code by an end user shouldn’t be allowed. Although its an ugly way to run code it is allowing the end user to use an application which has been made with what is effectively a demo version of Xojo. If everyone did this Xojo would no longer function as a business. Sorry to upset the original poster but Norman, this should not be allowed surely?
It’s a painful enough process that I don’t think it represents a serious threat to Xojo. I would think the marketing advantages of try-for-free far outweigh this potential abuse.
[quote=129426:@Norman Palardy]WHOA ! Stop right there. .Net is not “complacently put on the back burner” as you put it.
I’m actually kind of insulted by that characterization.[/quote]
Sorry if you feel insulted, but come on. 15 years to implement a framework that VB has had since 2002 is not exactly keeping up with technology. Since then, the decision not to implement .NET was clearly biased against Windows. It was not a sin, but it is a fact.
I am not questioning Xojo priorities. Now since 64 bits is in the pipe and LLVM as well thanks to iOS, as I wrote before, I simply hope .NET is not abandoned or considered unnecessary. A feature request ranked 22 this morning shows a real interest of your customers.
You are right, Tim. A few cheapies jumping through hoops running end user software through the IDE to avoid buying are no different than people reinstalling regularly shareware not to pay their 10 or 20 bucks.
The try before you buy model is the norm today for all software big and small, at least in the Windows and Linux world. Thanks to the Apple Store, Mac developers are somewhat immune. Though I still receive now and then an email asking for an evaluation product of software in the MAS. Not to forget big players like Adobe who adopted that model for their Mac software.
Between hard marketing with tons of costly advertising, and the tremendous free exposure a free evaluation represent, the choice is clear. Especially for a $100 product that is not exactly as easy to sell in large numbers as a personal accounting program like Quicken or Money.
For me the price was well worth it, I spend the best part of a year, going from Visual Studio, to MonoDevelop to get a C# project to work on Mac and it worked awful, then QT which was very time consuming, expensive if I wanted to sell my work an it only ever worked for me on Mac
In 2 weeks I’ve made more progress than I’ve done all year! Ok Xojo maybe a little quirky and a new learning curve but I can’t believe how quickly I’ve got a cross platform app that works with little fuss and the support has been fantastic
to round up, if your wanting to do stuff for free its going to be a bumpy ride, there’s always disadvantages, Xamarin/Monodevelop are awful to design forms with and can crash for no real reason apps just crash with no debug feedback, poor threading on Mac, C++ with WXWidgets is really unstable right now, QT is very nice and my ultimate fav but to expensive for what I need, very large file size when you include the libraries
Like I mentioned in another thread, I’m using Mint 16 with MATE on virtualbox… and its responsive no lag on about 2gb of ram dedicated and 4 threads of an i7
[quote=129352:@alex bartonek]Andre is right.
Xojo works faster on my Macbook Pro. Slow under Linux.[/quote]
Did you try to install VirtualBox / your Linux flavor and test it there ?
Also, no one tols us their computer specs, so no comparison on speed can be done.
There are ways to avoid the retyping process
[quote=129467:@Emile Schwarz]Did you try to install VirtualBox / your Linux flavor and test it there ?
Also, no one tols us their computer specs, so no comparison on speed can be done.[/quote]
My spec is
Windows 7 64 bit
i7 3770k 3.5ghz
8 gb Ram
2x 500gb harddrives
Mint 16 MATE 64bit on Virtualbox, 2gb dedicated ram, i7 on 4 threads
Mac Mountain Lion 3.9 Virtual box 2gb dedicated ram i7 and 4 threads
For me Mac is slower BUT it is really slow and choppy with everything I try to use
Linux is slightly slower than Windows but not enough to make Xojo counter productive
Win7 no problems with the workspace in regards to lag
The only thing I’ve noticed is Xojo uses a lot of Ram after doing a test run, its equal to doing a detailed 3D interior model in Sketchup!
[quote=129474:@nige cope]Mint 16 MATE 64bit on Virtualbox, 2gb dedicated ram, i7 on 4 threads
Mac Mountain Lion 3.9 Virtual box 2gb dedicated ram i7 and 4 threads
For me Mac is slower BUT it is really slow and choppy with everything I try to use
Linux is slightly slower than Windows but not enough to make Xojo counter productive
Win7 no problems with the workspace in regards to lag[/quote]
I am intrigued by Mate. Apart from aesthetics, is it really faster than Cinnamon ?
As I understand your post, Mac is running in the VirtualBox VM. Makes sense it is slow. Amusing to see it being choppy…
I never experienced lag in Windows either.
I run my old laptop with Mint 13 Maya xfce that’s a single core Intel with 3GB of ram and Xojo works but a bit slow, but its a 6 year old laptop, everything runs slow lol…
I use MATE because Cinnamon has a lot more un needed baggage, my choice was mainly based on the old laptop, its was so much quicker with Mate…
I use Maya because I have a really bad SIS graphics card that the newer version can’t find but its lightening fast compared to the newer version on the laptop… I prefer it over Mint 16
Mac, I think its not setup right, even the internet is really bad, a lot of lag scrolling pages, BUT my project runs great, no response problems, my C# version was slow and unresponsive
We did allow this deliberately
[quote=129447:@Michel Bujardet]Sorry if you feel insulted, but come on. 15 years to implement a framework that VB has had since 2002 is not exactly keeping up with technology. Since then, the decision not to implement .NET was clearly biased against Windows. It was not a sin, but it is a fact.
[/quote]
- .Net was initially released in 2002 - its not 15 years old
- .Net was NOT widely deployed on the OS versions we supported until Vista where it became installed by default
[quote=129512:@Norman Palardy]1) .Net was initially released in 2002 - its not 15 years old
2) .Net was NOT widely deployed on the OS versions we supported until Vista where it became installed by default[/quote]
OK. So it has just been 12 years RealBasic failed to implement a framework on the Windows platform VB has had since then. I gladly make amends for the wrong time estimate.
But my point stands. Vista was released in 2006, so it has been 8 years the standard framework for Windows is .NET, and yet, RB/Xojo decided not to implement it.
What would have happened on the Mac platform if RB/Xojo had failed to implement Cocoa ?
[quote=129532:@Michel Bujardet]OK. So it has just been 12 years RealBasic failed to implement a framework on the Windows platform VB has had since then. I gladly make amends for the wrong time estimate.
But my point stands. Vista was released in 2006, so it has been 8 years the standard framework for Windows is .NET, and yet, RB/Xojo decided not to implement it.
What would have happened on the Mac platform if RB/Xojo had failed to implement Cocoa ?[/quote]
XOJO would be dead on the Mac.
In 2006 Cocoa was not going to be required - Apple was still saying Carbon & Cocoa were peers (check the 2006 wwdc presentations)
Only when Apple finally said “Carbon will die” in 2007 was it clear we HAD no choice but to build a Cocoa framework for some future version of OS X when Carbon would NOT operate. A new Cocoa framework was started and the approach taken eventually abandoned as it proved to not be viable. A different one was subsequently undertaken which has now come to fruition.
And it also was clear that moving to 64 bit , updating the compiler etc was going to be required for several other reasons.
So those were also started.
MS has made NO such pronouncement about Win32 disappearing as a development API.
The urgency to implement a .Net framework is not the same EXCEPT for our desire to make our Windows apps better.
Realize that we had urgent business needs to
- move OS X to Cocoa (as Carbon was going to die we just didn’t know when thanks to Apple’s renowned secrecy)
- get 64 bit done (again since we expect that Apple WILL one day say "everything MUST be 64 bit) and because it has benefits on all other platforms)
- get LLVM done ASAP so we CAN eventually make progress on other issues (like .Net)
.Net didn’t even support much of what we needed / wanted for several releases (until about .Net 3) which makes it only about 4 years (not 12)
So to suggest that we’ve taken a “Yea whatever Windows doesn’t matter” approach is false, incorrect and disingenuous.
What would be correct is to say “a .Net framework is something we plan to do JUST not right now as we already have a lot of critical things to complete”
But you seem unwilling to accept / understand that we can’t tackle everything all at once.
Hence I’ll just put things on ignore for now.
[quote=129536:@Norman Palardy]So to suggest that we’ve taken a “Yea whatever Windows doesn’t matter” approach is false, incorrect and disingenuous.
What would be correct is to say “a .Net framework is something we plan to do JUST not right now as we already have a lot of critical things to complete”
But you seem unwilling to accept / understand that we can’t tackle everything all at once.[/quote]
I frankly do not appreciate your very adversarial position. You react as if asking questions was unacceptable, and that is not fair at best.
Now after dismissing .NET time and again you finally seem to suggest it could take place after everything has been done for Apple. OK. Thank you for your candid reply.
Vista was generally available in January 2007. So .NET 3.0 has been in the wild without needing an additional runtime download for 7 years.