Re: MC 2.7

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

J. Landman Gay
Klaus Major wrote:

> Hi friends,
>
> when i build a standalone with the new engine I get this error:
>
> The file MetaCard.app/..../.../metacard is no MetaCard engine
>
> ??? :-/
>
> any hints are VERY welcome.
>
> When i try to build a standalone with Rev, i get, "There was an error  
> building the standalone"
> which is not very meaningful. NO umlauts in the path!
>
> Will the script of the STAB have to be modified to fit the new engine?
> If yes, any hints how?

I wonder if we will be able to fix it. The engine has changed
completely, and standalones no longer attach the stack to the engine the
way it used to (which means the de-compiling script that was just posted
to the list doesn't work any more either.) We may need some help from
the RR team.

I didn't have any trouble building a standalone within Rev 2.7 though.
There are some other things besides umlauts that can cause a problem.
What happens if you remove all punctuation from the entire file path,
and make the path very short (for example, put the stack on the desktop.)

Here is a list of standalone problem issues from my notes:

1. The path to the stack contains non-ASCII characters, such as
diacritical marks or accent marks.  Avoid the use of accented or
non-ASCII characters in path names.

2. The standalone builder is set to search for inclusions but the stack
is password protected. Select the inclusions manually instead, or remove
the password.

3. Alternately, the standalone builder may be having trouble searching
for the required inclusions regardless of password protection. Turn off
"Search for required inclusions" and turn on "Select inclusions for the
standalone application." Then choose the resources you need to include
yourself in the Standalone Settings dialog.

4. The folder name is the same as your standalone's name. You need a
unique folder name; make sure you select an empty folder with a name
different from the standalone's name.  If you have previously built a
standalone from the same stack, do not try to build a new one into the
same folder. Trying to overwrite an existing standalone with a new one
can casue problems. Rename or remove the old folder first, and then build.

5. Your source stack's file name does not use an extension, or uses an
incorrect extension. Make sure your stack's file name ends with the
extension ".rev"

6. Your source stack contains duplicate "message box" or "ask" or
"answer" dialogs. Remove the embedded stacks and let the standalone
builder add them instead. (This usually only occurs with stacks
originally created in MetaCard.)


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Richard Gaskin
J. Landman Gay wrote:

> Klaus Major wrote:
>> Hi friends,
>>
>> when i build a standalone with the new engine I get this error:
>>
>> The file MetaCard.app/..../.../metacard is no MetaCard engine
>>
>> ??? :-/
>>
>> any hints are VERY welcome.
>>
>> When i try to build a standalone with Rev, i get, "There was an error  
>> building the standalone"
>> which is not very meaningful. NO umlauts in the path!
>>
>> Will the script of the STAB have to be modified to fit the new engine?
>> If yes, any hints how?
>
> I wonder if we will be able to fix it. The engine has changed
> completely, and standalones no longer attach the stack to the engine the
> way it used to (which means the de-compiling script that was just posted
> to the list doesn't work any more either.) We may need some help from
> the RR team.

Mark W sez that all we need to do is point to the new engines for
building standalones in the Rev install.

I haven't had a chance to check this out yet, but MW seemed confident
enough that I'm not too worried about it.

One way or another, when it comes to software everything is solvable.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Chipp Walters
With all due respect to MW, I've found problems with the Standalone
Builder in Rev (not MC) which he originally claimed weren't there. I
assume he's got so much on his plate that it's difficult to catch every
issue. And of course, many of us had chances to test this as well during
beta cycle. Just like him, I ended up with too much on my plate to
effectively beta test different scenarios prone to errors.

Rev needs to market products...that's how they make money.
Unfortunately, an architectural change of this magnitude will take a
long time to ferret out all possible combination of problems.

I'm planning on sticking with 2.6.1 until at least a version or two of
upgrades are announced.

-Chipp

Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Mark W sez that all we need to do is point to the new engines for
> building standalones in the Rev install.
>
> I haven't had a chance to check this out yet, but MW seemed confident
> enough that I'm not too worried about it.

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Chipp Walters
I should correct myself, Mark has directed me to the correct method of
installing database drivers in order for them to be incorporated into
the build process.

He's a wonderful asset to both the company and community. His work is
certainly split among most various and important tasks, and he still
finds time to help us out individually.

Thanks Mark!

-Chipp

Chipp Walters wrote:
> With all due respect to MW, I've found problems with the Standalone
> Builder in Rev (not MC) which he originally claimed weren't there.

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

J. Landman Gay
Chipp Walters wrote:

> He's a wonderful asset to both the company and community. His work is
> certainly split among most various and important tasks, and he still
> finds time to help us out individually.

I love the guy. Mark is Runtime's greatest asset. Brilliant, too.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

sims
In reply to this post by Chipp Walters
At 5:54 PM -0600 2/15/06, Chipp Walters wrote:

>With all due respect to MW, I've found problems with the Standalone
>Builder in Rev (not MC) which he originally claimed weren't there. I
>assume he's got so much on his plate that it's difficult to catch
>every issue. And of course, many of us had chances to test this as
>well during beta cycle. Just like him, I ended up with too much on
>my plate to effectively beta test different scenarios prone to
>errors.
>
>Rev needs to market products...that's how they make money.
>Unfortunately, an architectural change of this magnitude will take a
>long time to ferret out all possible combination of problems.
>
>I'm planning on sticking with 2.6.1 until at least a version or two
>of upgrades are announced.


Amen.

Rev 2.6.1 for at least a week (if not more).
TEST TEST TEST, then sell.

I think we'll need far less testing than the IDE, mind you.

I'm thinking that the biggest challenge left for us (except marketing)  is
coming up with 'How to tell our story'.  I've not heard a good version
of what that is just yet (our story). Forget 'corporate & consumer', I mean
a simple, clear, concise, 'here's what the dang thing does' kind of story.

We need one.

ciao,
sims
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

J. Landman Gay
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin
Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Mark W sez that all we need to do is point to the new engines for
> building standalones in the Rev install.


I just played with it but I can't get it to work. Mark's comments
elsewhere say that the build process hasn't changed, but it sounds like
we need to point the builder at the "Standaone" file inside the Runtime
folder rather than at the IDE engine itself.

I tried that but no go. I kept getting the error "Can't open that file."
I checked permissions, they are the same as the MC engine always was.

When I set a breakpoint to try and track down the problem, the variable
watcher would not load any variables. Breakpoints would break but as
soon as I started to step through, the next available error message in
the script would appear and the script would exit. Depending on where I
placed the breakpoint, different errors appeared. So I suspect the "not
a real engine" error is spurious, but I don't know what's wrong yet,
because debugging doesn't work.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

sims
In reply to this post by sims
Oops....sorry.
Too early here and not enough coffee.

Wrong 'To:'   - Let's see  'Wake up before pressing send.'

sims


>At 5:54 PM -0600 2/15/06, Chipp Walters wrote:
>>With all due respect to MW, I've found problems with the Standalone
>>Builder in Rev (not MC) which he originally claimed weren't there.
>>I assume he's got so much on his plate that it's difficult to catch
>>every issue. And of course, many of us had chances to test this as
>>well during beta cycle. Just like him, I ended up with too much on
>>my plate to effectively beta test different scenarios prone to
>>errors.
>>
>>Rev needs to market products...that's how they make money.
>>Unfortunately, an architectural change of this magnitude will take
>>a long time to ferret out all possible combination of problems.
>>
>>I'm planning on sticking with 2.6.1 until at least a version or two
>>of upgrades are announced.
>
>
>Amen.
>
>Rev 2.6.1 for at least a week (if not more).
>TEST TEST TEST, then sell.
>
>I think we'll need far less testing than the IDE, mind you.
>
>I'm thinking that the biggest challenge left for us (except marketing)  is
>coming up with 'How to tell our story'.  I've not heard a good version
>of what that is just yet (our story). Forget 'corporate & consumer', I mean
>a simple, clear, concise, 'here's what the dang thing does' kind of story.
>
>We need one.
>
>ciao,
>sims
>_______________________________________________
>metacard mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: MC 2.7

MisterX
Sims said

> >>I'm planning on sticking with 2.6.1 until at least a
> version or two of upgrades are announced.

> >Rev 2.6.1 for at least a week (if not more).
> >TEST TEST TEST, then sell.
> >

This feels more like the microsoft software release process - release, sell
THEN fix...

I too am reverting to 2.6. It's pretty obvious that 2.7 was NOT
tested on windows as it should have.

I've entered 2 blocker bugzillas. The installer is bug ridden,
prefs don't save anymore, scrolling fields leave artifacts where the line
was selected, and after 3 days I've had 2 crashes already!

I can't even launch rev by double clicking a stack as in 2.6!
It opens rev, not my stack. Guess what happens if I try double-clicking on
my
stack again?

I do see fixes here and there, but with bugzilla 3322 and 3320 you
just can't release or work with 2.7 on windows.

Also the Rinaldis plug-ins, were definitely not tested "visually"...

All this blending and anti-aliassing is really going to help my business
applications! right!

6 new bugzillas in 3 days, countless to update to 2.7 including those from
early 2005... New release, same story!

133 bugzillas opened and it's not finished... This is seriously agravating
for windows users not to see any improvements as reported months ago...

I was hopping to update my enterprise licence this time, I guess it's going
to wait another round or two!

Xavier


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
MisterX wrote:

> Sims said
>
>>>> I'm planning on sticking with 2.6.1 until at least a
>> version or two of upgrades are announced.
>
>>> Rev 2.6.1 for at least a week (if not more).
>>> TEST TEST TEST, then sell.
>>>
>
> This feels more like the microsoft software release process - release, sell
> THEN fix...
>
> I too am reverting to 2.6. It's pretty obvious that 2.7 was NOT
> tested on windows as it should have.

As a tester who's been too wrapped up meeting client deadlines, I feel
partially reponsible.

But I'm writing mostly to try to determine how this thread went from
being only on the MC list to also being on the Rev list?

Is it a glitch in the server, or in one of the contributors to this thread?

I'll have to be extra careful, since I tend to feel a bit more free on
this smaller MC list, and try to exercise a little more careful
judgement on the much bigger Rev list.

In the future, if someone decides to expand a thread to include another
list I think it would be good form to note that in the message.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

xavier.bury

Hi Richard,

Not your fault, it's mine.

Im at fault for hijacking the subject to rev. I thought it important to make the point to the wider audience - mostly PC users who will be seriously disapointed at the apparent lack of testing in 2.7 for winXP.

cheers
Xavier Bury


[hidden email] wrote on 16.02.2006 07:27:29:

> MisterX wrote:
> > Sims said
> >
> >>>> I'm planning on sticking with 2.6.1 until at least a
> >> version or two of upgrades are announced.
> >
> >>> Rev 2.6.1 for at least a week (if not more).
> >>> TEST TEST TEST, then sell.
> >>>
> >
> > This feels more like the microsoft software release process - release, sell
> > THEN fix...
> >
> > I too am reverting to 2.6. It's pretty obvious that 2.7 was NOT
> > tested on windows as it should have.
>
> As a tester who's been too wrapped up meeting client deadlines, I feel
> partially reponsible.
>
> But I'm writing mostly to try to determine how this thread went from
> being only on the MC list to also being on the Rev list?
>
> Is it a glitch in the server, or in one of the contributors to this thread?
>
> I'll have to be extra careful, since I tend to feel a bit more free on
> this smaller MC list, and try to exercise a little more careful
> judgement on the much bigger Rev list.
>
> In the future, if someone decides to expand a thread to include another
> list I think it would be good form to note that in the message.
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation
>   ___________________________________________________________
>   [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


To make communications with Clearstream easier, Clearstream has
recently changed the email address format to conform with industry
standards. The new format is '[hidden email]'.

Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream
International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
this message.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are
those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of
its affiliates or subsidiaries.

EN D OF DISCLAIMER


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Chipp Walters
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin
Yeah, I agree. I tend to be more 'free' on this list than use-rev. And
count me to blame a bit for the Windows testing, but frankly, sometimes
I have time for testing, and other times I just don't.

The testing process is a difficult one, but there are convential
practices for doing it-- many take lots of time and money.

When we used to develop CD-ROMs for big customers like Disney, we HAD to
get it right the first time, as you can't recall 150,000 SKU's at XMAS
time. We ended up paying big dollars to have testing labs do round the
clock testing of beta and golden master versions.

One of the great things (which I've been preaching for awhile) is the
new updatability of 2.7. This enables Rev to go to market and then fix
any anomalies easily at a later date. I hope Rev uses this to it's
advantage. I mean, look how many releases WinXP has! It's constantly
updating itself.

best,

Chipp

Richard Gaskin wrote:

> I'll have to be extra careful, since I tend to feel a bit more free on
> this smaller MC list, and try to exercise a little more careful
> judgement on the much bigger Rev list.

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by xavier.bury
[hidden email] wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Not your fault, it's mine.
>
> Im at fault for hijacking the subject to rev. I thought it important to
> make the point to the wider audience - mostly PC users who will be
> seriously disapointed at the apparent lack of testing in 2.7 for winXP.

I believe it was available to us for more than a month. How many bugs
were you able to log during the testing cycle?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

xavier.bury

As an enterprise user, i never got a wiff of a test cycle or beta release...

in my 3 days of testing i logged 6 bugs already - 2 of which are bloquers!
---------------------=---------------------
Xavier Bury


[hidden email] wrote on 16.02.2006 08:13:12:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Not your fault, it's mine.
> >
> > Im at fault for hijacking the subject to rev. I thought it important to
> > make the point to the wider audience - mostly PC users who will be
> > seriously disapointed at the apparent lack of testing in 2.7 for winXP.
>
> I believe it was available to us for more than a month. How many bugs
> were you able to log during the testing cycle?
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation
>   ___________________________________________________________
>   [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


To make communications with Clearstream easier, Clearstream has
recently changed the email address format to conform with industry
standards. The new format is '[hidden email]'.

Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream
International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
this message.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are
those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of
its affiliates or subsidiaries.

EN D OF DISCLAIMER


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Richard Gaskin
[hidden email] wrote:
> As an enterprise user, i never got a wiff of a test cycle or beta
> release...

As an Enterprise user you should be on the Improve list, where we've
been working with the new version in pre-release form since early last
month.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

xavier.bury

For some reason, and after lots of asking my studio license was inserted in the list.

Then it was removed by Heather - and she never looked if i wasn't also an enterprise user.

It's not like i haven't already logged 10% of all open bugzillas either...

im seriously displeased at this level....
---------------------=---------------------
Xavier Bury


[hidden email] wrote on 16.02.2006 08:32:56:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> > As an enterprise user, i never got a wiff of a test cycle or beta
> > release...
>
> As an Enterprise user you should be on the Improve list, where we've
> been working with the new version in pre-release form since early last
> month.
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation
>   ___________________________________________________________
>   [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


To make communications with Clearstream easier, Clearstream has
recently changed the email address format to conform with industry
standards. The new format is '[hidden email]'.

Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream
International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
this message.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are
those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of
its affiliates or subsidiaries.

EN D OF DISCLAIMER


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Richard Gaskin
[hidden email] wrote:
> For some reason, and after lots of asking my studio license was inserted
> in the list.
>
> Then it was removed by Heather - and she never looked if i wasn't also an
> enterprise user.

People make mistakes, and cross-referencing every license holder may not
be the top priority on her mind during a release cycle.

What did she say when you wrote to her with your Enterprise license
asking to be reinstated?

That is, you _did_ write her, yes?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

xavier.bury

This was in early 2005... I seriously dont remember.

I know i was asked to get in then removed without consideration. Given all the bugzillas i wrote from 2004 until mid 2005 I never got ever aknowledged
despite repeated requests to support, i seriously gave up requesting anything from support who usually responded
with the lamest excuses (sorry, that's how this customer felt).

Despite repeated and direct exchanges with Kevin, the same mistakes keep coming - not that Kevin answered often. Not that these weren't repeated in Monterey by Dan - and later aknowledged with some bugzilla feedback... It was but too late and too little in my opinion. meanwhile useless for business graphics are more bugs are introduced...

What's the use? Hundreds of hours in their benefit entering bugzillas, repeating the issues to hopefully someone who could direct their processes and quality and then being ignored up to this release
is not my responsibility to fix.

If i update to Rev enterprise (peanuts money for my company - not for my personal license though), i still have 1 case that is since 1999 blamed on windows drivers when the fault is clearly in rev/mc engine.
That was later posted as bugzilla 1076... For the life of me, i couldn't release a metacard based software to any of our 3000 users in the company since we all use terminal services or metaframe servers...

Superb isn't it?!

i just lost the hope that my help or critiques could help...

cheers
Xavier


[hidden email] wrote on 16.02.2006 09:11:54:

> [hidden email] wrote:
> > For some reason, and after lots of asking my studio license was inserted
> > in the list.
> >
> > Then it was removed by Heather - and she never looked if i wasn't also an
> > enterprise user.
>
> People make mistakes, and cross-referencing every license holder may not
> be the top priority on her mind during a release cycle.
>
> What did she say when you wrote to her with your Enterprise license
> asking to be reinstated?
>
> That is, you _did_ write her, yes?
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation
>   ___________________________________________________________
>   [hidden email]       http://www.FourthWorld.com
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


To make communications with Clearstream easier, Clearstream has
recently changed the email address format to conform with industry
standards. The new format is '[hidden email]'.

Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream
International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
this message.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are
those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of
its affiliates or subsidiaries.

EN D OF DISCLAIMER


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

Chipp Walters
X,

Why couldn't you release an MC app to any of your 3000 users? I don't
understand. Are you saying it must be a Rev app?

It's also not clear from your message whether or not you ARE an
Enterprise user. As Richard stated earlier, only Enterprise users can
upgrade with MC or have access to the Improve List where beta testing
takes place.

best,

Chipp

[hidden email] wrote:

> If i update to Rev enterprise (peanuts money for my company - not for my
> personal license though), i still have 1 case that is since 1999 blamed
> on windows drivers when the fault is clearly in rev/mc engine.
> That was later posted as bugzilla 1076... For the life of me, i couldn't
> release a metacard based software to any of our 3000 users in the
> company since we all use terminal services or metaframe servers...

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MC 2.7

xavier.bury

Hi Chipp

Im not saying it must be a rev app. But opening MC made tools in terminal services or metaframes
where the bitdepth is not 24/32 creates horrible unpredicable color changes at any time - while this
is ok for administrative tools which only i use, it can't be ok for enterprise users.

The latest issue i reported on the list with crashes when reading files when theres a windows API
timeout retrieving the files is another issue im very concerned with. Bugzilla in the making but a new
phase of testing is underway.

I've been using Enterprise MetaCard since 1999. I refused to update to rev due to the lack of
ntevents reported on faults and crashes. I do update the engine from rev but i cannot afford to
add further risks in my applications (they are used daily to make critical migrations of banking data)
and i see lots of unexpected crashes at home in the rev IDE which make me skeptical that it's
worth the update. I will update when i think it's solid enough... But it's still not the case.

cheers
Xavier


[hidden email] wrote on 16.02.2006 10:00:01:

> X,
>
> Why couldn't you release an MC app to any of your 3000 users? I don't
> understand. Are you saying it must be a Rev app?
>
> It's also not clear from your message whether or not you ARE an
> Enterprise user. As Richard stated earlier, only Enterprise users can
> upgrade with MC or have access to the Improve List where beta testing
> takes place.
>
> best,
>
> Chipp
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > If i update to Rev enterprise (peanuts money for my company - not for my
> > personal license though), i still have 1 case that is since 1999 blamed
> > on windows drivers when the fault is clearly in rev/mc engine.
> > That was later posted as bugzilla 1076... For the life of me, i couldn't
> > release a metacard based software to any of our 3000 users in the
> > company since we all use terminal services or metaframe servers...
>


To make communications with Clearstream easier, Clearstream has
recently changed the email address format to conform with industry
standards. The new format is '[hidden email]'.

Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream
International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
this message.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are
those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of
its affiliates or subsidiaries.

EN D OF DISCLAIMER


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
123