World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Robert 30-Nov-2009 [19859x2] | Don't know it just sounds better. I'm not a fan to give such words a meaning. |
Better to use an artificial name. | |
GiuseppeC 30-Nov-2009 [19861x3] | From time to time the topic "renaming REBOL" rises up. It is because we have nothing to do apart waiting for the Genius :-) |
Let's call it: BRANETUTL | |
BRAin NEeded To Undestrand This Language. | |
sqlab 1-Dec-2009 [19864] | although there is no chance that a new name gets chosen; areaL a reflexive, expressive and adaptive Language |
PatrickP61 1-Dec-2009 [19865] | This is Carl's baby -- He should decide the name and we should not have any say-so in it unless we're invited by him to do so. |
Henrik 1-Dec-2009 [19866] | We in fact are invited to do so, or were a while ago, when there was a discussion about it. |
PatrickP61 1-Dec-2009 [19867] | I stand corrected. Whatever Carl decides will be just fine by me. |
Rebolek 1-Dec-2009 [19868x2] | I fixed my StRIP packer (based on RIP but the result is enbased instead of binary data - I had a reason to do this) for R3. Packs directories and I added one refinement - /code - you can add additional code that is run after unpacking the archive. So you can use that directory just as a temp dir and then move files somewhere else or anything you want. It's basically a package manager, a very spartan one, but good enough for me. Get form next line (to prevent that extremly old and stupid AltME links bug). |
http://box.lebeda.ws/~rebolek/rebol/StRIP.r | |
Graham 2-Dec-2009 [19870] | Only a few weeks to Xmas ... has Santa Carl got any thing for us? |
Henrik 2-Dec-2009 [19871] | I suspect BrianH, Maxim and Cyphre wake up when the host code is released. That'll be enough for me. :-) |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19872] | See the blog :) |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19873x3] | Cyphre, onmy computer with your mandelbrot-int.r script i get : rebol 2 VM 2.7.6.31 : 0:00:03.904 rebol 3 (2.100.95a): REBOL Elapsed 0:00:04.354 my computer in intel core i5 750 , 4Go DDR3 1333MHz Gygabyte P55UD3 so maybe you should upgrade ( and i'm sur where i lost most of the time where in the consol exists) |
(oh and i had a 3D game running on the computer at same time...) | |
question is ... rebol is actually developed for deprecated hardware or for tomorow's hardware ? | |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19876] | R3 64bit builds should be optimized for tomorrow's hardware. The 32bit builds should be optimized for netbooks. |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19877] | but to run the 64 bit version you need to have windows 7 64 bit which is francly useless when 99% of your softwares are still 32 bits.... |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19878x2] | So far, we only have 32bit builds, and there has only been one optimized version, likely not the final settings either. |
Or Linux 64bit, or OS X 10.6, or.... We will have both 64bit and 32bit REBOL builds. Use the one that suits you best. | |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19880x2] | yeah but i like the benchmarks based on deprecated harware ... as you could see on a today's computer (and not even to top mark one) the gap betwin R2 and R3 isn't so wide as stated by cyphre... |
brianH the only OS where it means something to be in 64 bit is linux .... because you havec access to the source code of most of you software including the linux kernel and you can recompile them to optimise them to your hardware. With this important limitation ....as linux is not industry supported most of now in day hardware isn't full power supported ... so the optimisation part goes to waste... | |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19882] | For new hardware, the platforms limited to 32bit tend to be the ones where performance is a problem. If you want to run 32bit code on anything other than a netbook, then your hardware is overkill. The big boxes are switching to 64bit. And it matters a lot for R3 since integer math is 64bit even on 32bit builds. |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19883] | yeah but this means you posses the drivers and the user end software that goes with you brand new 64 bit os and hardware |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19884] | Windows has been going 64bit since XP/2003, and is going that way in a big way with 7/2008r2. OS X is going 64bit with 10.6 - 32bit only matters for 10.5 and below. Only on Linux is 64bit a problem, mostly for 32bit backwards compatibility. |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19885] | brianH and since then the windows 64 bits is more than a candestine OS ... (i'm asking myself if windows OSes in 64 bit are more used on eath than rebol or not ...) |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19886x4] | I do possess the drivers and software for my years-old legacy hardware that runs 64bit Win7 just fine. |
Most new computers with Win7 installations are in 64bit, since 32bit apps run without difficulty on 64bit Windows. 32bit Windows is only being installed on netbooks and bitty boxes that would benefit from netbook optimizations. | |
New Macs are all 64bit, no exceptions. All Intel Macs can run 64bit code, and do once upgraded to 10.6. | |
Soon, most 32bit Macs will be PPC. | |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19890] | PPC ? i thought they droped those PowerPC design some years ago for intel ones |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19891x2] | Yes, and people still se them. Deprecated doesn't mean the existing ones magically fail to function. Mine works just fine. |
Linux and the other non-Mac Unix-alikes, and the obscure OS's are the only ones that are sticking with 32bit, mostly because they are terrible at running 32bit code from their 64bit versions. Windows and Mac 64bit run 32bit code just fine now. | |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19893x2] | but on most of those os you can recompile most of the software which is impossible on windows |
then the lack i more about the new drivers than on the 64 bits 32 bits compatibility since you can do ./configure ; smake all ; make install | |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19895] | You might not have noticed, but many applications for Windows have been releasing 64bit builds recently. Just because *you* can't recompile the software doesn't mean that the developers of the software can't and won't. Most do, except the .NET or Java apps that don't need to be. As for drivers, a simple configure, make, install won't work unless the code was written and tested in 64bit mode. Having a 64bit OS that will easily run 32bit binaries without complaint is better that requiring the users to do a recompile (and likely rewrite) of the application. |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19896x4] | yeah but 90% of them are not |
that reminds me when my university bough dec apha 64 workstations back in 1998 question was what os we take ....Windows XP 64 then we don't have most of the drivers and softwares in 64 bits but the 32 bits emulation is good... Do we take Digital UX 64 ? then we have the drivers in 64 bits but we don't have access to most of the common software people use. | |
or do we use linux 64 bit .... if we don't have something then we can create it and i though our university purpose was to create and maintain software ? | |
so we went for a debian 64 bit home made os and that was perfect | |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19900] | I wouldn't know - I haven't found a piece of hardware made after 64bit CPUs came out (many years ago) that I can't get to work on Win7 64bit, even if it means using XP 64bit drivers Only one peice of hardware didn't have drivers built in. My friend found one 10-year old piece of audio hardware that won't work in anything past XP, even 32bit Perhaps your mileage may vary, but I doubt it. And the few applications that I use that don't have 64bit versions work without problems, even in 32bit. |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19901] | on the "server" a digital dec 50 we kept the digital UX with an adapter X11 server to broadcast the Xterminal sessions ... |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19902] | (sorry, some periods missing apparently) |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19903x2] | and handle the students accounts |
for example you can seee how intel and amd marketise the 64 bit capabilities of their main processors ... | |
BrianH 2-Dec-2009 [19905] | Win7 supports 32bit Windows Explorer extensions in 64bit Windows Explorer. I don't even know how that works, but it does |
shadwolf 2-Dec-2009 [19906x3] | a part for intel Xeon which is the server version and obvious 64 bit version processor it's hard to know what is the adress / integer lenght in the other processor |
but amd label their processors with the 64 stamp | |
i don't use windows explorer .... so that's not the problem | |
older newer | first last |