realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Flicker On Windows

To: Realbasic NUG <realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Flicker On Windows
From: Garth Hjelte <garth@chickensys.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:46:16 -0600
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com designates 74.124.194.228 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@chickensys.com
Delivered-to: listarchive@realsoftware.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chickensys.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:From:To:Date; bh=el4Eg9m/p1X5htxHXfnksSwAVuss3A8aAZu1ybIOlaA=; b=m82JgYmf9VOF8i++O/8RDCEPunZF7otf1tKgjjrDVW9HYmWyoBiOV28qefOn6HRHrgT7IjoiFoJDNBOv6EiXGtlig2PffKahnYoqhZIKn9NRn1mj0W+xKRSnr4LlKS0w;
In-reply-to: <9D3FE453-7E58-4DFE-916D-E5018EFC1943@cryptic.co.uk>
References: <4f5008c0.0336440a.3160.1999SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <9D3FE453-7E58-4DFE-916D-E5018EFC1943@cryptic.co.uk>
Reply-to: Realbasic NUG <realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com>
Sender: realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com
At 09:16 PM 3/1/2012, you wrote:

It's not like we are writing space invaders, I think it's about time someone from RS posted in this thread to explain the reason for the flicker and if there are any plans to resolve it.

Well, that's going too far the other way. Flicker is generally not a huge showstopper problem on Windows and can be dealt with and suppressed, I just said it still has a way to go.

The problem IMHO is that REAL is supposed to make the coding job easier and in this case it doesn't. Let's not make this a bigger deal than it really is. Most REAL Win apps can be flicker-free, but some can't.

We all know: REAL is just like that. About a month ago I wanted to see if I could compile my Mac apps on my Windows machine. Crashed constantly, so I checked with some people and the forum - no, don't bother was the answer. Made sense, I mean, if it doesn't compile how could that be my problem? There's only one piece of information available regarding it - you can do it. So it should work, right? No, it doesn't.

But then, millions of other things in REAL work, and I like that. REAL meets my needs and there's a lot to like. However, I do kinda fear that I'm only 2-3 steps away from ruin, but that's what I'm hoping this year will do - take some of the chains off and move REAL
from a good useful program to a really great one.

About 4 months ago I officially said goodbye to Visual Basic 5 (though I still use it and will continue to). It came out in early 1997, 15 years ago. It is rock-solid, fast, and still works in Win7. It starts up in 3 seconds. I have to wait 2 minutes for REAL to start - on both Mac and Win. I can get around the interface and different modules on VB5 much faster than REAL, because it's just a much quicker and responsive program. (None of this has to do with interpretative vs. compiled code.) VB5 had no future for me, but it WASN'T because of the IDE itself, and it wasn't because of the quality of the compiled code. It is a fair comparison, in situations where VB and RB compare, VB5 just does just about everything faster and better. (REAL's search and replace is much better, though.)

It's because of VB5 that I know that REAL can do better. Again, this is a challenge, not a criticism.

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>