API Help Broken on WIN11 [SOLVED]

[Kiffi]

Oh, Its the Forum truncating my link.

not really

[Kuron]

Oh, Its the Forum truncating my link.

It was fine the way it was before. Yes, the link "appears" truncated, but that is just visual and should only affect if you highlight the text and copy it and try to paste it in your browser.

Do not highlight it. If you right click the truncated link and select open link in new window or select copy link address and then post that in your browser, both of those methods work fine.

[Randy Walker]

@Kuron <<Thanks for the clarification.

@BarryG << you said:

If you trust me, here is a set of small files I downloaded from somewhere in the past, that restores Win32 HLP file support for Win 10.

The sandbox thing was over my head so I decided to trust you and I'm glad I did -- it fixed my api help problem.
Thank you very much!!!!++

[BarryG]

No problem! All the batch file does is install the official "win32hlp.exe" file and then register it for use by tweaking the system to allow it. I've also edited my other post to show the clean VirusTotal results of that file, to prove it's safe.

[Randy Walker]

My post proves your scripts are safe -- because I didn't come back, jump through your screen and strangle you for trashing my new top of the line notebook computer.

(still trying to figure out what to do with a14 core processor)

[BarryG]

My comment was more for others reading, who may have liked to see a VirusTotal link. I know you trusted me.

[Kuron]

My comment was more for others reading, who may have liked to see a VirusTotal link. I know you trusted me.

I trust you as well and downloaded it, even though it may be some time before I remember to transfer it to my Windows system.

[Randy Walker]

depend on how multi-threaded the compiler is, if at all. Dunno. Has always compiled extremely fast for me, even on my clunker with a Ryzen 5 3500U with 8GB RAM.

My 15 yr old workstation was "core 2 quad". very fast at the time -- 4 cores @ 2.83Ghz
Stll nothing to sneeze at. But 2.8-3.4 is just about the speed limit of any processor so the next step is add cores to increase speed. My super notebook is 2.9 Ghz and 14 cores. I expected a dramatic increase in speed but I guess its like you say, depends on how multi-threaded the apps are. Moral of the story is: if you want a faster computer, find something with a 3.4 Ghz processor and forget about cores.

BTW -- even with 2.9 Ghz its taking about 11 seconds to compile my 27000+ lines of code.

[Kuron]

I guess its like you say, depends on how multi-threaded the apps are.

Even if the app is multi-threaded, it depends on the chip, too. As many chips, the higher clock speed is usually only available on one or two cores. The other cores will run at a lower clockspeed to save power and reduce heat.

I am on a really nice Chromebook at the moment, it has this processor. It really kicks some serious butt. However, the next version of this processor when it is released will only have two performance cores (instead of four) and will have six power saving cores (instead of four). Better battery life (already regularly get almost 12 hours on the Chromebook) at the cost of worse speed. Intel has been doing similar for the last generation or so of chips.

Not to mention hyperthreading, which I am happy that my workhorse Windows laptop I use for audio/video editing & mastering is a six core system, with no hyperthreading. This system flies.

I got spoiled by Delphi 1 and Delphi 2 back in the day. Blistering fast compilers, but PureB is very fast, IMHO. Will take it over the MS languages any day.

[Randy Walker]

@Kuron -- your chromebook is very impressive, for a chromebook. If it can't compile purebasic code to run on windows it's uselesss to me.

[Randy Walker]

Searching for a way to flag this issue [SOLVED] but I guess we don't do that here.

[nsstudios]

You can edit your first post and change the subject. That will change the topic title.

Searching for a way to flag this issue [SOLVED] but I guess we don't do that here.