Thoughts on LC 10 dp 7

[richmond62]

I thought I would make a few comments on new features, but, oddly enough stumbled across something very old indeed:
-

Screenshot 2023-12-13 at 15.58.28.png (87.35 KiB) Viewed 439 times

-

Screenshot 2023-12-13 at 16.00.25.png (322.69 KiB) Viewed 438 times

-
The Database drivers DID download!

I am very happy indeed to find that feature has been removed from OXT Lite 0.95:
-

Screenshot 2023-12-13 at 16.04.31.png (104.32 KiB) Viewed 438 times

-
Frankly that is nothing short of seriously slack.

[richmond62]

Happy to see that, so far, they have not changed the stack file format (important for interchange):
-

Screenshot 2023-12-13 at 16.07.47.png (239.61 KiB) Viewed 438 times

[tperry2x]

Call me crazy... (crazy) - thank you ... but I expected to see their all-new reinvented UI in evidence here?

[tperry2x]

Looking at your screenshots during your testing of LC 10 dp7, it does not look like there are many changes / improvements visually? Perhaps all of these are 'under the hood' as they say.

[richmond62]

I dunno: if there is a hood, it is 'retracted' somewhat.

Grab yourself a free email with a fake name and go for a 10 day trial.

[richmond62]

The standalone builder interests me re Mac ARM builds:
-

Screenshot 2023-12-13 at 20.39.39.png (382.86 KiB) Viewed 424 times

-
If one selects both Mac Intel and what is called "Mac Apple" (which is plain wrong) does it build a single 'Fat' standalone, or 2 things?
-
Aah: it builds a 'Fat' bloatware thing.

[tperry2x]

If one selects both Mac Intel and what is called "Mac Apple" (which is plain wrong)...

Yes. Surely this should be 'macOS Arm'
It's a shame we can't use any of it, I just hope someone else can work on this. I know foxtrot47 said it might be possible to investigate engine code, but an arm option to build for another architecture is a huge task to add to OXT.

does it build a single 'Fat' standalone, or 2 things?
Aah: it builds a 'Fat' bloatware thing.

Not sure why anyone would want a 'Fat' version. Logically, anything that can run under Rosetta 2 would be intel, and then you'd want to build arm versions when Apple drop Rosetta 2.

Surely this pretty much doubles the size of any standalone?

[richmond62]

Presumably if one ONLY selects "Mac Apple" (i.e. ARM) one will end up with an ARM-only standalone, and the same for only "Mac Intel".

Although this is a bit messy insofar as one would have to set and run the standalone settings and builder twice.