Re: Another Idealist refugee

[Lawrence]

On Dec 6, 4:27 pm, gruff999 <gfor667...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Thank you for the link to the v3 files, I was on a November 95 build, the
> one on the link is Jan 99 so that`s an improvement straight away. I`d
> really appreciate any documentation and 'how to' papers you may have.

I have a pdf of the Idealist manual. You can download it from
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/62208205/Idealist%20Manual.pdf

[John Nurick]

As far as I can remember I upgraded in 2003 and didn’t notice any difference. Certainly nothing that had worked in the previous version stopped or worked differently in the Jan 99 build. The big improvement came when I upgraded from 16-bit to 32-bit in (I think) 1996.

 

From: Resurgam

Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:25 AM

To: Ideal...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Another Idealist refugee

 

Hello,

I have also been using the November 1995 build of version 3 for seventeen years, but noticed that someone kindly posted the January 1999 build of v.3. Does anyone know of any major differences between the two versions? With seventeen years' work at stake, I am a little hesitant to update unless there is a compelling reason.

Many thanks,
Geoffrey

[Resurgam]

Many thanks for the prompt reply. I've just upgraded but then checked the build date of the Jan 99 version and it's actually "1995.11.11" so no different to the version I was using. Out of interest, does anyone actually use Bekon's version 5?

[Chris Hurrey]

I have used the 1999 version on everything from Windows 3.1 to Windows 8 64 bit. I have even created my own "version 3.5" by recompiling some of the source code. I tried version 5 but found it unsatisfactory, especially as it lacked the capability to construct bespoke applications.

Great product though. I was in touch recently with the copyright owner but he has no plans to develop Idealist any further.

--

Chris

Chris Hurrey

tel       +44 (0)1276 514234

mbl     +44 (0)7969 907193 / +44 7982 934592

em      chris....@ntlworld.com

skype  chris.hurrey

[Osborn Editorial]

On 13 December 2012 12:30, Chris Hurrey <chris....@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I have used the 1999 version on everything from Windows 3.1 to Windows 8 64 bit. I have even created my own "version 3.5" by recompiling some of the source code. I tried version 5 but found it unsatisfactory, especially as it lacked the capability to construct bespoke applications.

Likewise, I have been using Idealist 3 since the days of Windows for Workgroups and am currently running it on 64-bit Win7. It is probably the most reliable piece of software I have ever used. Sadly the same couldn't be said about versions 4 or 5.

Chris, I'd be interested to know how your version 3.5 differs from the version the rest of us use.

Yours

Lawrence

--
Dr Lawrence Osborn
Osborn Editorial Services
Flat 35, 250 Camphill Avenue
Glasgow G41 3AS

0141 636 1614
edi...@lhosborn.co.uk
http://osbloggery.blogspot.com/

[John Nurick]

Interesting. Windows file properties for i32.exe show

  File version 1995.11.11.0

  Product version Jan 99

 

but in Idealist, Help|About|More... shows

  EXE Build Date Jan 08 1999.

 

Few people seem to use v5. I never got round to  it because the rich text didn’t do what I really wanted and it had the reputation of being buggy.

[Chris Hurrey]

Lawrence

I wanted a more secure version for professional use which would not allow users to delete any content or change settings. Essentially I just removed some menu options and the F9, CTRL O and ALT-F10 keys. I replaced ALT-F10 with a complicated 4 key combination curious users were unlikely to think of. The previous owners kindly let me have the source code but now it's easy to use that application that uncompiles the I32.exe file back into C++.

Chris

[Resurgam]

I wonder if anyone can help with a slight snag? I overwrite my original Nov. 1995 build files with the 1999 build last month. My main database currently contains 7,597 records and I use the record number as an identifier. My standard procedure for 17 years has been to go to the end of the file and add a new record - simple! So, today: end of file, insert new record, but instead of being record number 7,598 of 7,598, the new record is 7,583 or 7,598. In fact, wherever I go in the file, the new record always wants to insert itself at the same location, record number 7,583. I had this happen once before in the 1990s and believe I got round the issue then by exporting all records and importing into a new database. But is there an easier option? There are no stacked lists, all records are on view and I'm using Windows 7 32-bit.

Many thanks,
Geoffrey

PS  I've reverted to the Nov. 1995 build as I don;t think there's much difference and I would rather have "Blackwell" in the title bar than "Bekon"

[Chris Hurrey Public]

Geoffrey

 

If I recall correctly, the manual – or maybe the help file – warns that using the record number is risky because it can change, especially if the file is re-indexed or exported then reimported. The removal of empty or defective records can also change the last record’s number.

 

If I need a primary key, a unique identifier for each record, I use an integer field in each record and increment it by 1 each time a new record is created. This identifier will never change and will remain with its record always.

 

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more ideas!

 

Chris

 

tel        01276 51 42 34

mbl       07969 90 71 93 / 07982 934592

em        chris....@ntlworld.com

skype    chris.hurrey

 

From: Ideal...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ideal...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Resurgam
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:39 PM
To: Ideal...@googlegroups.com
Cc: chris....@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: Another Idealist refugee

 

I wonder if anyone can help with a slight snag? I overwrite my original Nov. 1995 build files with the 1999 build last month. My main database currently contains 7,597 records and I use the record number as an identifier. My standard procedure for 17 years has been to go to the end of the file and add a new record - simple! So, today: end of file, insert new record, but instead of being record number 7,598 of 7,598, the new record is 7,583 or 7,598. In fact, wherever I go in the file, the new record always wants to insert itself at the same location, record number 7,583. I had this happen once before in the 1990s and believe I got round the issue then by exporting all records and importing into a new database. But is there an easier option? There are no stacked lists, all records are on view and I'm using Windows 7 32-bit.

[Resurgam]

A quick update: a full export/import (using Idealist Natural format) into a new database seems to have worked




On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:39:00 PM UTC, Resurgam wrote:

I wonder if anyone can help with a slight snag? I overwrote my original Nov. 1995 build files with the 1999 build last month. My main database currently contains 7,597 records and I use the record number as an identifier. My standard procedure for 17 years has been to go to the end of the file and add a new record - simple! So, today: end of file, insert new record, but instead of being record number 7,598 of 7,598, the new record is 7,583 or 7,598. In fact, wherever I go in the file, the new record always wants to insert itself at the same location, record number 7,583. I had this happen once before in the 1990s and believe I got round the issue then by exporting all records and importing into a new database. But is there an easier option? There are no stacked lists, all records are on view and I'm using Windows 7 32-bit.

[Resurgam]

Hi Chris, and very many thanks for the prompt response. Your are absolutely correct. I still have my printed manual and it certainly does warn against using the RecNo command, offering the EditIncrement option instead.

For the time being the export/import option appears to have worked but I'll try a field definition change and see how I go.

Thanks again - it's a real bonus not only to be able to use the program so long after it was first released but also to be able to call on expert help

Geoffrey

[Chris Hurrey Public]

Geoffrey

 

You’re welcome. Not sure I qualify as ‘expert’ though.