Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

WinBuilder development should go!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
105 replies to this topic

#26 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10565 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:22 PM

If a noob-user compares the results ... Wimbs PE3 95% success on first build, MOA 95% success on first build , Winbuilder 5% on first build - guess what he will use ?

I'd say that it will depend on the winbuilder project that is used.

WinBuilder would be in a better position to defend itself with a project that supported multiple sources exactly because you and many other people don't understand that wb itself is only an engine following the instructions by a third-party that created a project.

So, instead of maintaining several disperse projects, one single project with support for one or two different sources for the most popular platforms can grow stronger with time.

#27 PaPeuser

PaPeuser

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 787 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:51 PM

Excuse me. That’s all BS

The only developers who had a Multi source project gave up. It takes allot of work and testing with every source to do a Multi source project. When the rules changed during the development or in the middle of development,, it pissed people off…

OO and lets not forget the accusations about redistributing software that were included in a test – beta project. What is a developer to do??

I understand why a developer would give up on Winbuilder…….. I gave up learning script because the rules changed every day!

So now you are going to change the rules again, and make everyone happy??

Good Luck….

#28 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10565 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:08 PM

So now you are going to change the rules again, and make everyone happy??


On the contrary, winbuilder.exe is not changing. What is proposed here is a new script project.

And I'm not taking direct part in either case, it is a suggestion to discuss.

#29 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 20 September 2010 - 02:33 AM

Well, NO. :cheers:

That would amount to UBCD4WIN or Amalux "frozen builds".

We already have them. ;)

What the user expects/wants to do is to customize his/her build, but this has to be carried EASILY, meaning that you shouldn't be able (unless really wanting to) to create conflicts that prevent a successful build.

Also, an easy, well documented mechanism to "repeat" builds or create "pre-made" builds is missing, AFAIK.

The downloaded, self extracting archive is your 'base' to re-build anytime if needed, you can customize the project all you want; it's only suggested that you build a working one first :)
Posted Image

After making any additions or customizations you desire, creating a new archived base is simple with the option above.

Unfortunately, I see no way to make the project 'unbreakable' while leaving it fully customizable.

:ph34r:

#30 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 03:21 AM

WinBuilder would be in a better position to defend itself with a project that supported multiple sources exactly because you and many other people don't understand that wb itself is only an engine following the instructions by a third-party that created a project.

Nuno, the problem is that the fundamental syntax rules which the WB engine accepts keeps changing. That's the whole point -- maintaining a project is very difficult for this reason and if you want to add "build from any selected source files" into the mix then this will be even more difficult to maintain. I wholeheartedly agree with Uli's assessment.

I already did something about this:
- Proposed a test project to ensure correct functioning of available commands across versions.

Which was shown to be unworkable due to syntax changing on a whim.

- Suggested a release schedule and phases that would be simple to follow and prevent major changes between versions;

Which hasn't been followed by you or Peter.

- Tried that focus would be given on winbuilder projects instead of winbuilder.exe features;

That's always been happening for project developers and script developers. Hence our complaints arising about script syntax always changing necessitating project and script upgrades all the time.

- Moved the old bugtracker to a more public location;

Only you were really in favour of this.

- Suggested that api.script was optimized along with projects since the building is not efficient;

Which was a nice distraction from the real issue where WB itself has grown very sluggish as evidenced by build comparisons between 077rc2 and 080 where 077rc2 would build up to twice as fast. api.script has been optimised in recent months, but we still await an optimised winbuilder.exe that doesn't carry alongside the baggage of script syntax changes like what 081rc1 has.

- Suggested that the documentation moved to a place where members can edit it.

That's quite a good idea and it'd be great if the syntax written there wasn't altered at every WB release unless script developers were involved in such a decision.

Now don't complain and request a better development model. Perhaps now you understand better that those were attempts to bring some organization. Thank you for helping.

Thanks for your thanks regarding the help I've tried to give. Lancelot and I have spent quite a few weeks over recent months optimising particular api commands. I'm glad you appreciate the effect that has gone into that undertaking. It's been no small feat in Pedro's absense.

If I could, I'd surely like sit down one more time and prove that with enough magic and effort we can achieve a simple, small and efficient solution.

Magic would be indeed what's needed!


you and Lancelot many times requested in several hundreds topics per thread that nobody else would request or understand.

In reality we've made very few actual feature requests; mostly it's been bug reports. Lancelot is after all a bug-catcher. We've dropped out of making such reports due to the conflict this creates (although we do know of many bugs with both 081rc1 and versions released after that date, we just haven't been posting them to the bugtracker because of the conflict this causes). We're focussing our efforts on building projects with supplied only 077rc2 and 080 and not with any later versions unless it is agreed that script syntax can only be changed in consultation with project and script developers.

Don't complain to me about over-complexity or ever changing functionality, I'm in a favor of over-simplicity and never voted to see LiveXP to become so overly complex as it is today.

You miss the point. I'm not complaining about over-complexity and I'm not complaining about changing functionality. Both are fine and have their place. Let me repeat again what I don't like: fundamental syntax being repeatedly altered, script developers not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place.

Regards,
Galapo.

#31 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10565 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:42 AM

Syntax is the one from wb 080 and that won't change anywhere soon.

Just have fun.

:ph34r:

#32 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15469 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:46 AM

Unfortunately, I see no way to make the project 'unbreakable' while leaving it fully customizable.

Sure, there isn't any AFAIK which is viable.

I think I need to further clarify my thoughts on the whole matter:
  • Winbuilder works (and it works since YEARS) ;)
  • exception made for a handful of .script developers it's Syntax is mostly UNknown, misused and more generally VERY, VERY difficult for a newbie to learn
  • some "basics" of the interface are UNfriendly for the final user
  • the "logic" behind a number of options in projects (conflicting with each other) is IMNSHO completely "crazy" and/or not enough documented to allow building successfully without a number of failed attempts before (and as said the only currently working for all thingies are "frozen" projects)
  • projects (with a few exceptions) are UNmantained, some are MIA, some cannot be actually found by anyone but a handful of people, and once found won't work with a given Winbuilder release (but will need an older one - BTW NOT specified in the project itself)

So, it is a matter of priorities, as I see it untill the above have not been "solved" there is no or little sense in starting a new - extremely complex - project.

The problem is the lack of resources (willing people), using the very limited ones that we have on some wild goose chases is simply foolish. :ph34r:

BTW, the "strongness" of Winbuilder is the ability to be highly customizable, and it's "weakness" is that the resulting of customization will INVARIABLY at the moment produce a non working build, and this happens because there are many, many choices to take AND most of them are conflicting with each other, a new project like the one theorized will introduce yet another set of choices, thus making the probablilities of a failed build grow exponentially.

In other words, the idea (or theory) behind a new multi-source project is nice and interesting but it is NOT compatible with the current high level of customization, the only way currently to approach such a project would be to create something that "automagically" takes decisions instead of the final user, and this will limit greatly the customizations available, besides being of enormous complexity to be actually written.

If you have a house, and it needs to have the roof structure repaired and the walls reinforced and the kitchen sink replaced, you normally do things in this order:
  • reinforce the walls
  • repair the roof replacing the old beams when needed, and changing tiles
  • AFTER the two above have been completed, you think about installing a new kitchen sink with a coloured led lighted faucet


;)
Wonko

#33 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:34 AM

Syntax is the one from wb 080 and that won't change anywhere soon.

Nope, that's flat out wrong of which anybody who has actually done any testing with 081rc1 or 081rc2 will be aware. Some syntax of some important functions and variables has changed and no one was consulted about this. This necessitates updating of projects and some scripts to work with the new WB version. LiveXP for one has made the decision to no longer support the new winbuilder version for this very reason and no other. Like I've said in the past, if someone wants to take the reigns of the project and keep it up-to-date with regard to the latest winbuilder versions, then I'm more than willing to hand it over.

Just have fun.

Well, there is no fun following the winbuilder.exe update train for the reasons already given both here and elsewhere on these forums: fundamental syntax being repeatedly altered, script developers not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place.

There's fun to be had in project development no longer committed to keeping pace with new winbuilder versions. Lancelot and I for one have had great fun in recent months in script development since deciding to stick with only suppporting winbuilder versions 077rc2 and 080.

Regards,
Galapo.

#34 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:42 AM

Unfortunately, I see no way to make the project 'unbreakable' while leaving it fully customizable.

We have Verify which does a good job at making checks for this.

Note: LiveXP has been downloaded some 10,000+ time since 1 September. And yet we have very, very few people coming here with build troubles, which are generally due to source issues anyway (a problem which Nuno will need to address with his "build from any source imaginable" idea). Either 1) people have build problems and they give up without coming here; or 2) they just done have many build problems in reality.

Regards,
Galapo.

#35 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15469 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:31 AM

We have Verify which does a good job at making checks for this.

IMHO, another "missed" opportunity:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=5107

And here is nother reference useful to billonious too:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=7237
http://www.boot-land...?...=7237&st=14

Note: LiveXP has been downloaded some 10,000+ time since 1 September. And yet we have very, very few people coming here with build troubles, which are generally due to source issues anyway (a problem which Nuno will need to address with his "build from any source imaginable" idea). Either 1) people have build problems and they give up without coming here; or 2) they just done have many build problems in reality.

3rd option:
  • people download things just for the sake of it

Just FYI see this (tracking download history for the fun of it):
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=2362
http://www.boot-land...?...=2362&st=30

:ph34r:
Wonko

#36 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:42 AM

IMHO, another "missed" opportunity:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=5107

No, not really. It is used heavily in both LiveXP and nativeEx.

3rd option:

  • people download things just for the sake of it

Yes, I'm sure that is sometimes the case.

But note your linked programs: downloaded only some couple of thousand time in a number of years. Regarding LiveXP, were talking tens of thousands of downloads in the last month. That's a bit different. And that's not even taking into account Amalux's builds and the amount of issues people have with his builds as well which is quite negligible.

Regards,
Galapo.

#37 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15469 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:55 AM

No, not really. It is used heavily in both LiveXP and nativeEx.

Sure :ph34r:, but, as said, not enough IMHO (or it could be more useful and extended to cover more issues).

But note your linked programs: downloaded only some couple of thousand time in a number of years. Regarding LiveXP, were talking tens of thousands of downloads in the last month. That's a bit different. And that's not even taking into account Amalux's builds and the amount of issues people have with his builds as well which is quite negligible.

Well, it was just an example, I had no intention to compare one of my half a§§ed batches to LiveXP, but if you compare the "verticality" of my little thingies with the "horizontality" of LiveXP, the resulting trend should be clear.
Additionally and worsening the situation is the fact that my "vertical" batches are likely to be of interest to "more advanced" users ONLY, among which the amount of "download for the sake of it" or of the "download without reading first" kind should be very, very low or non-existant.

As said, Wonko does approve the approach by amalux and his pre-configured builds, as in his experience they are the ONLY ones that are VERY LIKELY to work at first or in the first few attempts.

From a "philosophical" and "programming" standpoint, my half a§§ed batches, WHEN they provide checks for NEEDED things/app, do these checks BEFORE running.

My experience with Winbuilder (and soon Lancelot will chime in to accuse me that I didn't try LiveXP version x.xx ;)) is that VERY OFTEN you launch the builder and after several minutes of stupid blue progress bars, it fails because a teeny tiny pre-requisite is missing.
This is a foolish approach.
There is NOT at the moment an adequate verification of the Source, and of the availability of the needed things, and of the conflicts raised by the user choices (crazy as they might be).


;)
Wonko

#38 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10565 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:56 AM

Nope, that's flat out wrong of which anybody who has actually done any testing with 081rc1 or 081rc2 will be aware.

Why are you complaining about syntax changes on beta and completely unstable versions that are only released for test purposes?

I advice you to use the 080 version or any previous version when publishing a project to public.

#39 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 11:04 AM

(and soon Lancelot will chime in to accuse me that I didn't try LiveXP version x.xx :ph34r:)

Well, I can chime in too. For probably about a year now there has been a script which is always run initially to make fundamental checks on source. Ever since this script was released, we have had far, far less issues with incompatible/damaged/tampered sources. This script has recently been revised, although not published yet, which extends this checking even further. I guess this might please you.

Regards,
Galapo.

#40 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 11:12 AM

Why are you complaining about syntax changes on beta and completely unstable versions that are only released for test purposes?

I'm not talking about beta versions: I'm talking about the actual released 081rc1 and the recently released 081rc2. "Release candidate" would be construed in normal circumstances as being a candidate for release. That is, software or some project which is considered by the developer to be stable enough to be considered post-alpha, post-beta, but just this side of actual release. It is a release candidate, something that is very close to being finalised.

If you consider winbuilder.exe RC versions to be "completely unstable versions" then the situation is very bad. I confess I don't know what winbuilder.exe version you are meaning. I've consistently been referring to RC versions.

I advice you to use the 080 version or any previous version when publishing a project to public.

No need to advise me: I've already being doing this for a number of months for the reasons already stated: fundamental syntax being repeatedly altered, script developers not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place.

#41 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15469 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 September 2010 - 11:14 AM

I guess this might please you.


Sure, it may. ;)

If you could also add an aggressive interface, something like:

You dumbass!
You selected BootSDI AND Wimboot AND Firadisk AND ramdisk.sys AND Wimpack and Create .ISO AND "bootable USB" AND grub4dos AND this AND that.
This makes NO sense!

It would be perfect. ;)

But seriously, does the new version check this kind of conflicts? :ph34r: (above are just faked, and for example purposes, I have no idea if currently this can still happen :) )

Does this new version do a pre-check for doubled, tripled and n-ed requirements?

I'll wait eagerly for such a thing.

:cheers:
Wonko

#42 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 11:25 AM

If you could also add an aggressive interface, something like:

Sorry, it does lack the agressive tone, so it's by far from perfect.

But seriously, does the new version check this kind of conflicts? :ph34r: (above are just faked, and for example purposes, I have no idea if currently this can still happen :blushing:)

Basically, such conflicts of this kind do not occur because conflicting scripts are automatically deselected. But double-checks are made just in case.

For example, I recently added the check where if ImDisk is required on the host it is determined right from the start whether ImDisk is actually working if needed, say, by a ram-boot script. If not, the script aborts, the project is halted before the project build is started, and the user is alerted to the issue which only would have been otherwise known right at the end of the build process.

Regards,
Galapo.

#43 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15469 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 September 2010 - 01:03 PM

I see. ;)

To be picky (as always ;)) there must be a problem in the way the Board keeps dates or in the way Galapo uses verb tenses. :ph34r:

This:

For probably about a year now there has been a script which is always run initially to make fundamental checks on source.


and this:

Basically, such conflicts of this kind do not occur because conflicting scripts are automatically deselected. But double-checks are made just in case.


don't go together well with:
http://www.boot-land...?...c=12456&hl=
(dated September 2010, please read as "NOW")

Maybe it is:

Basically, such conflicts of this kind do will not occur anymore because conflicting scripts are will be automatically deselected. But double-checks are will be made just in case.


And yes:

You selected BootSDI AND Wimboot AND Firadisk AND ramdisk.sys AND Wimpack and Create .ISO AND "bootable USB" AND grub4dos AND this AND that.


(above are just faked, and for example purposes, I have no idea if currently this can still happen :) )


I lied. :cheers:

:cheers:
Wonko

#44 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 September 2010 - 02:54 PM

For example, I recently added the check where if ImDisk is required on the host it is determined right from the start whether ImDisk is actually working if needed, say, by a ram-boot script. If not, the script aborts, the project is halted before the project build is started, and the user is alerted to the issue which only would have been otherwise known right at the end of the build process.

Mybe I misunderstand completelly, but what means "Imdisk is required"? Should it create a new virtual drive?

Whether Imdisk is installed (if a certain script needs it) can be checked by Verify.
Maybe then Verify ends the build in the very begin.

When Imdisk (or something else) is used to create a new virtual disk, the following way is recommended:
  • System,GETFREEDRIVE,%Free%
  • <Create drive> %Free%
  • <do your tasks>
  • <Delete and free the created drive> %Free%
This works independent from currently "ImDisk is actually working if needed, say, by a ram-boot script".
Therfore it is nonsence not necessary to break the build and ask the user to close current ImDisk drive, if another Imdisk drive is already used.
It only fails if your OS has no more available drive letters. In this (very impropable) case your check is sophisticated and applicable.

BTW: It is nice (I now understand Wonko) to have the time to think about such unimportant issues, seeing the partly rather complex solutions created, and tell the user how to make it simply. (@Galapo: Try to do explore a "Flow" of WimBoot.script with all it's internal %ImDiskDrive% and %ImDiskFreedrive%
uses!)

EDIT by pscEx: Sorry, I meant the WimPack.Script!

Peter

#45 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:42 PM

Mybe I misunderstand completelly, but what means "Imdisk is required"? Should it create a new virtual drive?

Yep, you misunderstand completely, making the rest of your post nonsense.

Regards,
Galapo.

#46 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10565 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:53 PM

I'm not talking about beta versions: I'm talking about the actual released 081rc1 and the recently released 081rc2.

Perhaps this needs to be repeated several times. Use a stable pair version, odd versions are just that: "odd".

Yep, you misunderstand completely, making the rest of your post nonsense.

Also non-sense to be discussing problems in LiveXP at this topic, why not opening a new topic?


:cheers:

#47 stefany

stefany

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:23 PM

Also non-sense to be discussing problems in LiveXP at this topic, why not opening a new topic?

Starting with post 6 you started it, and by continous efforts effect others too, making them think problem is not post 1 "thing" but other things.. Well done.

Perhaps this needs to be repeated several times. Use a stable pair version, odd versions are just that: "odd".

Sure, after current topic created where developmed asked such absurb thing, following usual ignorance to Galapo questions, this post created hence another topic here saying retired but the hope of peace under the "retired" word seems already death with post 7 and 13.. another byes topic, usual post games. I hope you can stop.


btw, 1 thing about this topic, I agree with you, lets simplify LiveXP. Also no need Galapo hosting too, We can do that verry quickly with a provided access method hence no more complain or attack about LiveXP anymore, seeking other ashes to fire.

I hope you like the idea, which would eventually end all these nonsence created by all of you.

(Lancelot, away from home, but I guess my long post proves who I am)

#48 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10565 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 September 2010 - 11:41 PM

Hi Stefany.. ;)

Can we eventually go back to topic or are you going to keep on incarnating other users here on Boot Land?

Beware that assuming multiple personalities is considered a disorder in some countries albeit I'm comfortable in replying to whichever personality you prefer to assume.


Starting with post 6 you started it, and by continous efforts effect others too, making them think problem is not post 1 "thing" but other things.. Well done.


On post 6 I've said:

Would be nice to see a simple project.
Just pick a source, go.

What the heck do you think I've started? :cheers:

Our boot disk world doesn't revolve neither around winbuilder nor livexp nor nuno nor lancelot nor galapo nor peter nor any other single developer or project, it revolves around users.

If I see a way of improving the end-user experience, then I will surely propose it to the community.

We won't be here within some years so we might as well do our best to leave something useful and productive for others. Do keep this thought in mind while you troll away your next reply on our forum.

#49 stefany

stefany

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 21 September 2010 - 12:18 AM

Hi Nuno,

this is a "bugmenot" account I found, I use sometimes when forgot my ufd with me. Well short story is: I do not want to give an excuse to anyone saying my boot-land account (pm s) monitored because of weak pw , as a result I can not remember pw ;)

What the heck do you think I've started? :cheers:

Just to clear, I do not agree with you, But I am with you to get rid of this stupid and childish post games all around occupying time. Simple LiveXP is the key to finish these stupidness you create like the creation of this topic, this is what everyone asks, lets rock.

For rock'n roll, no need galapo.net deal with livexp anymore, in fact it was my idea (sorry Galapo) putting livexp to galapo.net, but "now" Galapo monitor his limited server everyday for spending time to these stupidness !!

As far as I know dropbox account cause failure because of livexp server size,
If you can point different folders to different dropbox accounts, I can provide you number of emails required (tomorrow).
or whatever you like, a temporary ftp account may also fit better....

Only 1 day is enough to leave something useful which would hopefully not give reason to PSC you and others write lies and stupid logic anymore. This is the GOAL which would give both Galapo and Me peaceful time not needing answering these lies.

I guess all clearly suits your goals, peaciful boot-land, no trouble with livexp, no trouble creator psc (<- I can not guarentee that). I am waiting your response, I will close galapo.net livexp server when I get back home.

#50 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:07 AM

Perhaps this needs to be repeated several times. Use a stable pair version, odd versions are just that: "odd".

Then, please, for goodness sake don't call some winbuilder.exe oddity a "release candidate" if in fact you don't really mean it. At best it breaks the normal understanding of the phrase which leads to confusion (I'm still confused about this development model and what you actually mean), and at worst it is deceptive.

Also non-sense to be discussing problems in LiveXP at this topic, why not opening a new topic?

Yep, I know, but I've only been responsing to your own and Wonko's posts. And that's also why I've repeatedly tried to bring the discussion back to the central issue, viz. fundamental syntax of the winbuilder engine being repeatedly altered, script developers not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place..

Regards,
Galapo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users