Or, if the person didn't change the change the directories of anything, the fasmw.exe file could use GetCurrentDirectory to find the include folder
Posted on 2003-01-10 14:45:50 by CyberGuy
FASMW just replaces the environment variables, it doesn't have to know about any directory with includes. You decide what variables and in what way you use - "include" variable is just a suggestion. Because this version of package contains sources that use Win32 includes this way, it could contain an installer that would make an appropriate variable, but FASMW itself is independent of that.
Posted on 2003-01-10 14:54:55 by Tomasz Grysztar
man vimrc

Ok, I read ***that*** man page....
Posted on 2003-01-10 16:57:02 by scientica
...
Posted on 2003-01-11 02:57:10 by POW

No darn installer please.. what's wrong with a straight EXE?
If there's something of Windows I've always hated is to get a Setup.EXE file, rather than a straight EXE.

Please, if you decide to make an installer, provide also the thing ready-to-run uninstalled.

And, most than all, don't touch the registry.
Posted on 2003-01-11 03:15:35 by Maverick
I would not have wanted to use the external setup...
The current installing is excellent!
Sorry
Posted on 2003-01-11 03:23:38 by tserk
All right, so I'll keep it this way (BTW I'm happy you don't want an installer, because I also like more this "classic" approach - unpack it where you want and cofigure yourself to get it working). Now it's time to make PDF documentation up-to-date and add a chapter about FASMW, so each distrubution will have its own version of manual. I'll work on it next week.
Posted on 2003-01-11 03:56:42 by Tomasz Grysztar

All right, so I'll keep it this way (BTW I'm happy you don't want an installer, because I also like more this "classic" approach - unpack it where you want and cofigure yourself to get it working).
:alright: :alright: :alright:

Also, the "put it where you want it to run, and just run it" is the very normal way in computing world.. it's only Windows that breaks if one moves an EXE in another dir. In my Amiga I was moving executables all the times.. all always worked perfectly. I just hate Windows.. it's so upside-down thought..

On the Amiga we had comfortable installers.. BUT they were just OPTIONAL applications to move all the files somewhere else.. pretty useless to me.

Anyway, the worst monster of Windows is its registry.. dammit if it sucks. It would not be acceptable for me neither on a OS (like AmigaOS) that you install one time, and you will never need to reinstall anymore (never reinstalled it in 15 years!!!). But Windows instead needs to be reinstalled every n months, and with it all the applications, all the configurations have to be re-entered by hand... how much does this suck?!?! :grin:
Posted on 2003-01-11 05:22:00 by Maverick

how much does this suck?!?! :grin:


Sigh, there aren't enougth word, there are simply no engugth words for hw much it sucks.... :(

IMO, using an installer for small quick programs is ineffective and bad, sine that only provides a new source of errors.
But for big apps (with 125+ app files (exe, dll, sys, bin, etc; documens and examples not counting) _may_ need an installer, especially if a few files are to be in the windows folder, a few in the system dir, a few in the common files, and a few there and here)

Long live the classic approach! :)
Posted on 2003-01-11 06:45:21 by scientica

especially if a few files are to be in the windows folder, a few in the system dir, a few in the common files, and a few there and here)



Not good programmed then.

My (Windows) programms can be installed by unziping. Settings are saved in the programm folder in a ini file. If I need to save "global" settings somewhere, I use a ini in the Windows directory but inform the user about it in the uninstall section of the readme.txt :)
Posted on 2003-01-11 07:06:05 by bazik

Not good programmed then.

No, probably not. I thought of writing something childish in the original post (that would aim to look down on HLLs), but I wasn't in a enought childish mood then...... :tongue: ;)
Posted on 2003-01-11 11:24:35 by scientica
Hi,
Dont know if any1 else has had this problem but every now and again fasmw bombs out giving a exception error,this wouldnt be a problem if my code isnt lost everytime :( it's happened to me twice while compiling source. And both times i lost the code i was working on for some reason.

I'm Running Windows 2000 sp3
and intel processor

in case that helps, just thought i'd let u know.
cheers
keyoke
Posted on 2003-01-13 15:42:18 by keyoke

Hi,
Dont know if any1 else has had this problem but every now and again fasmw bombs out giving a exception error,this wouldnt be a problem if my code isnt lost everytime :( it's happened to me twice while compiling source. And both times i lost the code i was working on for some reason.

I'm Running Windows 2000 sp3
and intel processor

in case that helps, just thought i'd let u know.
cheers
keyoke


I've faced this problem some times too, under Win98SE with K6-2 proc. :mad:
Posted on 2003-01-14 09:43:48 by longer
The latest version (14-01-2003) has some memory leaks fixed, maybe this helps.
Posted on 2003-01-14 10:52:24 by Tomasz Grysztar

The latest version (14-01-2003) has some memory leaks fixed, maybe this helps.


Time will show.:)

Anyway, even if it won't, thank you for your hard work, Privalov! :alright:
Posted on 2003-01-14 11:34:00 by longer