"TheEndless" wrote:
(e.g., like publishing to all first, then publishing the Roku 3 only version on top of it, but even then you'd never be able to update the lower end version).
"squirreltown" wrote:
Thanks Endless. I figured it was something like that, but thought you might know a trick. I may try that, as I wont be updating the old version."TheEndless" wrote:
(e.g., like publishing to all first, then publishing the Roku 3 only version on top of it, but even then you'd never be able to update the lower end version).
"TheEndless" wrote:
I'd try it out with a test private channel first, just in case.. 😉
"destruk" wrote:
You could build a version check into your channel -- if >5 then run the new version of the code, otherwise run the older codebase.
"BradC" wrote:
The biggest thing it doesn't do is allow smaller more compact versions for older hardware and bigger packages (larger graphics, etc.) for the newer hardware that can handle it better.
A versioning option would be a nice feature to allow better compatibility, but I think I saw RokuJoel say on here earlier that they are now discouraging legacy support, so I don't imagine they will be releasing that feature anytime soon.
"squirreltown" wrote:
There really ought to be more options in the"requirement" web interface. It's not simply a matter of legacy vs. newer firmware. There are so many different hardware platforms with some significant differences as far as 2DAPI memory and other features (openGL) and things that are technically supported but don't actually work properly all the time. I would expect developers to have a much better and more current idea of what actually works then RokuCo, which is busy doing other things - not testing if a particular esoteric thing works on the blahblablah-X platform. They recognized a need for a "Roku3 only" option. Is it really that much of a burden to add a few others? Obviously the ability to target specific platforms is already built into the system.