On Wed 31 May, Andrew Hodgkinson wrote: > > Martin Wuerthner wrote: > > > With hindsight, it would have been a good idea if RO5 had introduced > > such a check - back then, it would have been an ideal moment to do so > > because all executables had to be changed anyway to make them 32-bit > > compatible. > > Actually, many executables did not, particularly a lot of transient > utilities. In fact there was a long discussion and ultimately a quite > explicit decision to *not* require the header. There was already more > than enough incompatibility without introducing another source of problems. > > If the RISC OS market had been alive, vibrant and bouncy ;-) then the > decision might have been different, but because there were a fair few > 26/32-bit neutral bits of code already out in the field that worked but > were no longer maintained. With the market apparently in no state to be > likely to either restart maintenance, the decision was made to have as > small an impact as possible. I can see the logic in the above, it is though a pity that advantages of AIF headers wasn't promoted along side the details for 32bitting! or was that done and ignored:-( > Crashes due to running 26-bit code accidentally are surely rare; but > you're right to point them out. I thought AIF headers offered a number of other advantages which would increase reliability. > 32-bit RISC OS was originally conceived > for use in closed systems, with Phoebe long dead, though the engineers > involved did try to bear in mind desktop users - good thing too, as it > turned out, or the Iyonix couldn't have happened. :-) Chris Evans -- CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists' Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679 chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/ 78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile! --- To alter your preferences or leave the group, visit //www.freelists.org/list/iyonix-support Other info via //www.freelists.org/webpage/iyonix-support