World: r3wp

a lot of the APIs have changed in Windows vista/7 (not sure about 
Clipboard).  

the kind of changes I would expect...  if its not using the latest 
apis, newer features in the OS could simply be preventing REBOL from 
accessing this device.

just like how these new OS prevent you from writing within the program 
files folders.


some things which had defaults, maybe now require explicit flags... 
etc...

Hi, did somebody also notice the speed difference between Vista and 
7 as below?

Benchmark run 27-Aug-2009/16:16:06+2:00. Rebol 2.7.6.3.1
Computer: 100Mega Athlon II X2 250/4G DDR3
OS: Windows Vista 64
Precision: 0.05
Empty block: 104000000.0Hz

Eratosthenes Sieve Prime (size: 8191): 54.0Hz, result: 1899 primes
Four-Banger test (+,-,*,/): 150000.0Hz, result: 10.0

Integral (icount: 10000) of sin(x) 0<=x<=pi/2: 42.7Hz, result: 1.00000000000003

Integral (icount: 10000) of exp(x) 0<=x<=1: 60.2Hz, result: 1.71828182845896
Merge Sort (500 elements): 68.4Hz

Benchmark run 4-Oct-2010/17:00:19+2:00. Rebol 2.7.7.3.1
Computer: 100Mega Athlon II X2 250/4G DDR 3
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Precision: 0.05
Empty block: 131000000.0Hz

Eratosthenes Sieve Prime (size: 8191): 69.0Hz, result: 1899 primes
Four-Banger test (+,-,*,/): 188000.0Hz, result: 10.0

Integral (icount: 10000) of sin(x) 0<=x<=pi/2: 49.7Hz, result: 1.00000000000003

Integral (icount: 10000) of exp(x) 0<=x<=1: 74.8Hz, result: 1.71828182845896
Merge Sort (500 elements): 90.4Hz

(I checked, that the speed difference between 2.7.6 and 2.7.7 is 
not that big)

Benchmark run 4-Oct-2010/17:05:53+2:00. Rebol 2.7.6.3.1
Computer: 100Mega Athlon II 250/4G DDR 3
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Precision: 0.05
Empty block: 129000000.0Hz

Eratosthenes Sieve Prime (size: 8191): 71.4Hz, result: 1899 primes
Four-Banger test (+,-,*,/): 188000.0Hz, result: 10.0

Integral (icount: 10000) of sin(x) 0<=x<=pi/2: 51.3Hz, result: 1.00000000000003

Integral (icount: 10000) of exp(x) 0<=x<=1: 75.5Hz, result: 1.71828182845896
Merge Sort (500 elements): 92.5Hz

wow that's a pretty big differerence!

(vista / w7)

almost exactly 20% on the same system.

So, I am curious, whether somebody would confirm my finding.

all I can say is that I felt the same effect when moving from vista 
to XP.  possibly even more.

I am wondering what is the simplest method to implement the Touch 
function in REBOL? Is there anything simpler than to append one character 
to the file and remove it again?

The UNIX touch create the file, if it doesn't exists. (If you will 
make sure, that happens.)

Maybe look at a source of "touch" to see, what it does?

and how it does it.

seems, that it does it differently, but, actually, that method is 
not suitable for my purposes, I need an "across network" touch, which 
should be consistent with "storage clock"

why not just alter the time of the file .. .and if it doesn't exist, 
then create the file?

I think I did that for my directory syncing tool

That is actually not what I want - suppose that you manipulate a 
file on a different machine, not using synchronized clock

BTW, did you use the SET-MODES function?

Yes.

I would have thought that logically the file on the other pc is for 
the time owned by the original pc

Does the SET-MODES function work for you in R2.7.7?

Haven't tried ... not for many years

There's no way PC1 can know what time it is on PC2

There is: Touch a file and get its time

;-)

that implies the resource on pc2 has a touch facility

Actually, that is why I am using the Touch function

no watch??

right

(I just do not know on which machine the file is)

a related problem: how to remove the last character from a file in 
R3?

In my file replication tool I hit a snag ... when replicating directories 
I was not able to set the file date :(

ie. get-modes can't set directory dates

I suppose you mean Set-modes?

yes

Now that I think about it .. my NAS box has that problem .. I copy 
files to it, and the file dates are in the future because the box's 
time runs fast :(

how to remove the last character from a file in R3?


I don't know, if it will be done differently in R3, but using R2 
I would do something like:

sz: length? p: open/binary %file
write/binary %newfile copy/part p sz - 1
close p

hmm, ugly

in R2 it can be simpler, but probably not in R3

yeah! :-)

Is this better with your definition of 'ugly'?


write/binary %file copy/part read/binary %file (get in info? %file 
'size) - 1

- that is the same for me, I would like to just remove one character, 
not to copy the whole file

Is that possible?

in R2 it is, as it looks

I mean, is it possible in R2?

Could you show me?

port: open %file
remove back tail file
close port

Neat! :)

remove back tail port is what I meant

yes