Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good for PB bad for VB !!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Mark,

    I will let you in on a little secret, Microsoft have been trying to do that
    for years, thats why they keep trying to change the rules.

    The general view is that COM / ActiveX is on the slide at Microsoft because
    they did not gain the market leverage they wanted from it, NET seems to be
    the next plot to take over the world and I imagine the market will be as
    trusting of Microsoft as they are now.

    I agree with Michael Mattias in staying away from the more unreliable
    technology, API code is very powerful and generally more useful if you are
    not seduced by the glitz.

    As someone who runs win95b on a PIII, I am not interested in debugging any
    more Microsoft operating systems, I suffered NT4 for a year or so on a spare
    partition but preferred to save the disk space by removing it.

    Regards,

    [email protected]

    ------------------
    hutch at movsd dot com
    The MASM Forum

    www.masm32.com

    Comment


    • #22
      Hey Hutch!

      The core API is all well and good but aren't you worried that Microsoft will replace it with C#. Meaning that the only API we have to use then would be what we have now. I guess thats a silly question because you could always write it in asm.

      ------------------
      Cheers

      Comment


      • #23
        Ron,

        As for Win2k, I was referring to NT Workstation & 98 vs Win2k Pro, I've had very few troubles with NT4 server and haven't really tried 2k server. I speak merely of desktop and laptop workstations of which I support many hundreds and use them myself, the statics speak for themselves.

        As for the Win98 platform I'd have to agree with South Park's Mr Garrison:
        "You go ta Hell and You Die!!!"


        ------------------

        Paul Dwyer
        Network Engineer
        Aussie in Tokyo
        (Paul282 at VB-World)

        Comment


        • #24
          The core API is all well and good but aren't you worried that Microsoft will replace it with C#.
          You mean the Microsoft Operating System company is going to close off developers other than the Microsoft Applications Company?

          Nope.

          MCM
          Michael Mattias
          Tal Systems Inc. (retired)
          Racine WI USA
          [email protected]
          http://www.talsystems.com

          Comment


          • #25
            > aren't you worried that Microsoft will replace it [the core API] with C#.

            I worry about a lot of things, but that's not one of them.

            -- Eric


            ------------------
            Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
            Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
            "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

            Comment


            • #26
              Paul, I agree with your assessment of NT workstation. Although it is merely a dumbed-down NTS, I have noticed
              it is very unstable and strange things appear to happen to the programs running on it. i discourage anyone from using it.

              ------------------
              Ron

              Comment


              • #27
                And I have nothing but good things to say about NT4. I find it to be very stable and virtually problem-free.

                I would never, ever, under any circumstances, go back to using 9x on my development machine. I'd quit programming first. Seriously.

                If your programs act strangely on NT systems, then (IMO) it is because you have programmed for the buggy 9x operating system, not the other way around. Whenever I write anything more than a trivial program I run it on 9x to see what screws up, then I start patching holes.

                So I guess it's a matter of perspective. There are differences between 9x and NT, so if you develop on one, the other one causes problems for you.

                All I know is that I achieve much better results on both platforms when I do my development on NT. And the problems that I find on 9x machines are clearly bugs in the API that do not conform to the documented behavior.

                As Lance says, "YMMV".

                -- Eric


                ------------------
                Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
                Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>



                [This message has been edited by Eric Pearson (edited February 02, 2001).]
                "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

                Comment


                • #28
                  Eric,
                  I agree. I can't imagine any professional programmer using anything BUT
                  NT or Win2k for development. I GPF frequently and when using Win9x it meant
                  a reboot, even if the system didn't lock-up, just to make sure I didn't corrupt
                  somthing that would pop up later.

                  I bet a very significant number of bug reports PB Inc receives may be attributed to
                  crashes under Win9x where the programmer did not reboot their system.

                  James

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    James --

                    After using NT4 for daily programming for several years, I actually got my first Blue Screen Of Death last week. It was clearly my fault -- I tried something really bizarre with an API function -- but I was almost proud of myself for bringing down NT. It had never happenned before.

                    You're right, a GPF on an NT machine doesn't destabilize the whole system, and that's a big plus.

                    -- Eric

                    ------------------
                    Perfect Sync: Perfect Sync Development Tools
                    Email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
                    "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I work on NT4 and W2K machines for all dev work, and I also
                      run extensive monitoring software to keep track of apps
                      which are running across a network of 13,000+ machines. I push
                      the systems hard, with goofy code at times, and I have our
                      support folks coming by reminding me that I need to reboot every
                      once in awhile. My point, of course, is that these systems are
                      so stable that even my programming errors and heavy multitasking
                      do not bring them down. I like W2K even better than NT4 and find
                      my apps run faster, much faster than on W9x. In some cases
                      clients ask me why the application seems so much faster on my
                      machines. These NT based OS products give me great results.

                      ------------------

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        hahahahahah

                        Eric, JC

                        You guys make it sound like this is some sort of support group!

                        All I was saying is that running a large IT helpdesk like AT&T Japan you can see a few clear facts

                        1. Win95 was a mediocre OS, but a good step up from 3.11
                        2. Win98 had more bells and whistles, more speed while new but then flake later
                        3. NT4 Server is fine
                        4. NT4 Wkstn is mediocre, good at first but suffers code rot after 6 months to a year depending on how much installing and uninstalling you do
                        5. Win2k server we're not ready for, leave it for another SP
                        6. win2k pro, needs a lot of prep but doesn't rot like nt4wk, runs great on a powerful machine for ages and unusable on older systems. (but has fat32 support !!!)
                        7. MS is stopping the non NT line so ME is a dead end in the corporate environ, and since 95 to 98 was a step down why bother with ME when win2k is a step up.

                        In support, the fewer flavours of OS you support the better, so it's like this.

                        Leave nt as is
                        Delete 98 where possible
                        install 2k for powerful workstations or ones that require internationalisatization
                        pretend ME doesn't exist

                        Easy !!

                        ------------------

                        Paul Dwyer
                        Network Engineer
                        Aussie in Tokyo
                        (Paul282 at VB-World)

                        [This message has been edited by Paul Dwyer (edited February 02, 2001).]

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X