On Jan 6, 6:03=A0am, "n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2:48=A0am, "John Fredrickson" <jaf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Now that you have released Run BASIC 1.0, are you going to return
> > to working on Liberty BASIC 5.0?
>
> Hear hear! =A0In my (personal and biassed) opinion prioritising Run
> Basic over fixing the Vista issues in Liberty Basic was a mistake.
Well, there are a lot of factors that go into those sorts of
decisions. It's easy to criticize from an armchair.
And, you make it sound like Liberty BASIC doesn't run on Vista. You
only have to install it in a folder in root directory and it works
fine. I know you take issue with this approach but I take issue with
Microsoft's approach. For now, until I rework LB for a maintenance
release it works fine for a lot of people. You are the only person
(seriously, the only one) who has uttered the slightest complaint and
based on what, a philosophical stance?
> I must say I was most concerned to read somewhere that Run Basic has
> inherited LB's Vista incompatibility, to the extent that it is
> recommended to install it in a top-level directory rather than in
> Program Files (presumably instead of providing the proper manifest to
> establish correct User Account Control behavior). =A0I would be
> interested to hear Carl's justification for this.
Because Run BASIC is a cross platform system which will run on
Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. After I get them all released and out
there in the real world for a bit I will consider creating a
specialized code branch for Vista. Right now I want the code to be as
near identical for each platform as possible. So for now, they will
all install in a folder in root.
When it comes down to it the system works fine as it is. I just don't
think it is as im****tant as you suggest.
Computers are supposed to get easier to use as technology advances,
but Windows is getting more and more intractable and difficult.
-Carl Gundel
http://www.runbasic.com
|
