Hi Reinhard,
you know more about the screen file than I do. I can tell you that I'm using the latest build of Mach4 3481 but using a copy of wx4 from build 3233....I think, certainly
the build current as of October 2016. The evidence I have suggests that its not an incompatibility issue.

I have considerable sympathy where you have provided information to NFS and that has not been reflected in the later builds.  You may have noted that I have commented
about that in this thread. I would have to agree that NFS have not made the most of the solutions that have come from hobby users. It may be that because of finacial
imperatives that NFS is obligated to ignore the hobby market I believe however the long term effect of that policy will be that hobby users will desert Mach.

Can you find an earlier build of Mach4? I seem to recall that PMDX maintained an archive of early releases.

Craig

When Mach4 version 2 was introduced it made almost everything users developed under the original version useless. Is this what is being described here ?

Tweakie.

Hi Craig,

Sorry, I should have mentioned the build numbers

I worked on my screenset with 3390 and the most recent build, I have is 3633.
Do you have lua extensions in your screen and did you use functions from a selfwritten module file?

What do you mean with NFS? For me NFS stands for network file system and I don't know, how that could be related to m4

Can you find an earlier build of Mach4?

I have several versions, but not a complete archive. Why do you ask for earlier versions?

... effect of that policy will be that hobby users will desert Mach.

Yes, that's very poor. I know about several people, that don't want to try m4 - some of them stay with m3, but lot of them are looking for other solutions. Lot of potential hobby users don't understand and don't estimate the fanuc compatibility. And from what I can see - there's no affordable motion controller for power-users (like pci/pcie-mesa cards for linuxcnc) that works with m4.

Reinhard

NFS = Newfangled Solutions = Artsoft

When Mach4 version 2 was introduced it made almost everything users developed under the original version useless. Is this what is being described here ?

Wow, good thing I didn't know that, and I didn't develop anything under Version 1, never used version 1 other than to look at it. Now that I'm working on stuff in Version 2, when Version 3 comes out will "almost everything" I've done be rendered useless or have things stabilized to where we'll be good moving forward? If a new version is likely to break everything I've done, I'm probably out of here right now!!

when Version 3 comes out will "almost everything" I've done be rendered useless

I don't think so but if I knew the answer to that I would be buying a lottery ticket.

Tweakie

Hello, django013, please send in in a support ticket with your screen set and we will help figure out what is preventing you from being able to load run or edit it in later versions of Mach4. Please include a copy of your profile that you can get by clicking in the help then support tabs and select package current profile. Best regards Jim.

http://support.machsupport.com/

A Lot has been said since yesterday. 
 
I think Craig and Chaoticone have struck a huge chord; users who EXPECT Mach4 to behave a certain way will get frustrated and leave.  I personally think certain aspects of Mach4 should behave in a certain way, but I understand they don't and I find a work around.  Some hobbyist just won't put the time in to fix a button or two.

The first machine we used Mach4 on was a Profile Knife Grinder, it took a long time to figure out LUA and Mach4 to get it working how we wanted it to, and to be honest it was a lot of bells and whistles over just getting it to work. However, the next machine I used Mach4 on a retrofit it took 1/8 of that time.   I made a folder with all the custom code and button scripts to aid future retrofits.  For us this is beneficial, but how many hobbyists will have 6 CNC Machines (and counting) to set up.

Chaoticone,
I find myself in Group 1 and Group 2.
We are not hobbyists when it comes to Mach4, we are a machine shop that make wood cutting tools, so we dig in and make Mach4 listen to us and has proved to be very worth while.
We just bought a Haas VF4 to up our capacity and some of the features on the Haas are incredible.  What I love about Mach4 is the fact that I can take the features from the Haas control (which is awesome IMHO) and integrate them into future retrofits.

But getting back on topic.  Is Mach4 really hobby material?   
I agree that NFS could update the API more frequently to aid other users,  I think certain configuration settings should be improved to be more plug and play (external buttons, scripts, etc), and the folder that has example macros and scripts should be updated more often. 
The example folder can be filled with examples from this forum.  If I had such a comprehensive source of information (a more extensive example folder) Most of my questions starting out would have been answered.  I think Mach4 has great hobby potential, I just needs to be a little more streamlined.

I'm not aware of any changes between version 1 and 2 that would break others screens or profiles. The default screens and profiles were drastically improved though.

I think the problem was when some modified the default screens or profiles for their own use. Why they would do that, I have no idea. Anyway, when they updated the defaults were updated. It wasn't that the update broke anything of theirs it just updated the defaults. If the defaults were what they chose to use for their own then yeah, they would be overwritten. The fix is to use loader to copy a default profile and create a custom profile and configure that custom profile for your use. But that is covered in the manual so I'm sure no one reading this did not already know that.

When customizing, always start by copying and saving the closest matching default as something custom. This applies to everything you customize in Mach. This is also more often than not a good computing practice. If this bit you I'm sorry to hear that. But remember, it is a lesson you learned that is advancing you in your hobby. Also be careful who you blame for what you didn't know.

Another good practice when customizing is to use Mach4s constants (listed in the API doc). These are there to facilitate updates to the core and not break custom scripts (provided they are written correctly of course). But if folks doing customizing don't use them, updates to the core may break their scripts. But the tools are there to prevent this. I have been bit by this more than once myself (old habits die hard). I just had to ask myself...... "do I get mad at myself for not using the tool or do I get mad at the guys fixing bugs, adding features, adding tools etc.?".

There is yet another step you can take to protect your customization even more if you want to. Put your custom scripts in a custom lua module. The tool is there.

Now the question is, do these things (and lots of things not listed here) make Mach4 less hobby friendly or more? I say more but some also make it more different (if taken advantage of). But, the ones that make it more different (better IMO) don't have to be used. The ones that don't make it better are pretty much the exact same. Pretty much everything I compare from Mach3 to Mach4 ends with this same conclusion.

Hi Reinhard,
all my customisations are Lua extensions, I haven't written any modules.

From your post it sounds like you have written modules and other than Lua?

Craig