Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good for PB bad for VB !!

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

  • Paul Dwyer
    replied
    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).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck de Young
    replied
    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.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric Pearson
    replied
    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>

    Leave a comment:


  • jcfuller
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric Pearson
    replied
    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).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric Pearson
    replied
    > 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>

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Dwyer
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Hutchesson
    replied
    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]

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    What do any of you touting Windows 2000 as
    being more stable than NT base your statements on - microsoft fud?
    Windows NT 3.51 is the most stable microsoft windows OS they have ever cranked out.
    Win2000 is NT4 with some new features added. It is not re-written from scratch as
    you-know-who has so often stated (you know when Bill Gates is lying - his lips are moving!).

    We have had NT4 running for over 2 1/2 years on a cluster, running sql server and it has
    not flickered. Our experiences with Win2000 is that it is slower
    unless you run apps written for it. They did a good job of scrambling the interface to
    basically achieve the same functionality - stupid!
    We don't subscribe to paying 10's of thousands of
    dollars for licenses and doing the same thing again a couple years later when microsoft
    says they have the Oracle "equalizer" product - if it runs on Win2000.

    As for VB.Net - i don't like the idea based on my very limited knowledge. As for converting
    vb6 and earlier apps, my approach would be to rewrite.
    I don't think we would use VB.not. We would use CPound (C#).
    It will have to earn the "sharp" designator.



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

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    IIRC, Microsoft's "design and run-time relationship" between its compiler products and its operating system products (and business software, and browser software) was recently addressed by the U. S. Dept of Justice.

    Should the court-ordered breakup actually occur and be enforced, I'm guessing the WinAPI will be a bit more open and developers will not be locked in to a Microsoft compiler, nor subject to the a new release of Internet Explorer "breaking" existing code because the common control API was changed.

    If one stays outside the realm of ActiveX, OCX, etc and relies on the "core" API functions in USER, GDI and KERNEL, the Win32 API is actually a very nice, powerful tool with a lot of stability.

    My $0.02, anyway.

    MCM


    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Comeau
    replied
    Lets not forget that, ALL PB programmers are M$ supporters.

    We code to a target audiance of M$ systems. We just do it our way.

    Please see my OOP topic, we need to develop code rippers to convert source code that will ensure our future in PB.

    All c c++ code can be converted into compatable PB functions, so we just include the ability to rip down COM and NET resources.

    Meanwhile PB will produce compatible compilers for the newer OS's.

    Mike...

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I have some worries here for PB. If you look far enough down the line here folks it almost seems like Microsoft is trying to gain a monopoly in the compiler business. Pretty soon the only compiler that can keep up with new versions of windows will be Microsofts. I mean PBDLL doesn't even support COM/ActiveX and that seems to be going the way of the dodo. Looks like we're all going to turn into Microsmurfs!

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bern Ertl
    replied
    Having been literally on a desert island for the better part of the last three years, I'm a little bit behind the curve and trying to catch up. I have a general understanding that M$ is trying to gravitate everything to a Webcentric future which is of no use for me professionally, but I'm not savvy to the finer details of the differences between Win98, Win2K & WinMe. I was of the understanding that WinMe somehow incorporated a significant architectural difference (no Win32?) from the previous versions of Windows. Is this true?

    Does anyone have any idea if M$ has plans to continue revising their Windows operating systems to the point where PB programs will no longer work on them?



    ------------------
    Bernard Ertl

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Meeks
    replied

    We'll said, Scott...

    Also, Paul Dwyer, about WindowsMe! You are right about Win98, but
    WindowsMe has taken the Nightmare away from Windows, at least for
    me! WindowsMe has been very stable, compared to all the Versions!

    C++ or VB++, but in my view, they are trying to take the Basic out
    of Visual Basic.

    Wish PB (powers to be) would give us some more clues on the new
    and improved PowerBasic 7 or (the new name), but, that would be
    asking too much!

    With that said, I bet it's more in line with our thinking, than
    the new VB.Net will ever be!

    Thanks
    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Dwyer
    replied

    That's YOUR loss if you don't upgrade to Win2k, it is by far SO SO SO Much more stable than NT could ever DREAM to be..
    - I aggree with you there, I work in SysAdmin for AT&T Japan and the attitude is, Go Win2k, ban WindowsME and remove 98 where possible. 98 is a nightmare to support it's so buggie, no chance that we'll give ME a go.

    Why not convert to C++ if they are going to go to all the trouble?
    -They are converting C++, It's called C# (C Sharp) and it's their new flagship compiler in VS



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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Karabatsos
    replied
    Rich

    re COM as the basis for all new APIs

    I have yet to see any mention of new system extensions that do not have COM support. Sure, it is possible that MS will change that in the future, but somehow I doubt it, especially for the next couple of years. I do not profess to be an expert it .NET, but I don't think assemblies impact the way you would expose
    functionality from an OS point of view at all.

    I don't know what you read on Borland's web site, but I have not heard anything about dropping ActiveX support in Delphi 6. Of course, there will be no ActiveX support in Kylix -- what would be the point of ActiveX support on Linux?

    I am not setting myself up as an expert here, and I stand to be corrected if necessary. However, I think that a lot of VB 6 programmers are going to need to have a real think about where they are going to go next, and I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that they will indeed go to .NET

    That's not to say that I am predicting the demise of VB -- It has just too much presence on its home turg for that.

    -- Jim


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Turchin
    replied
    a bit TOO philisophical for me but I do have to comment on this one:

    Microsoft has forged the way everything works for some time now, but I
    don't think that trend will continue. None of my clients have migrated
    from NT4 to 2000. The industry is coming to a point where they know what
    they want, and blindly following Microsofts lead is not what they want.

    That's YOUR loss if you don't upgrade to Win2k, it is by far SO SO SO Much more stable than NT could ever DREAM to be..

    And I have a friend in charge of testing whistler, he said it is 10x better than Win2k is stability....


    Microsoft has done a LOT of good, lets not start bashing them.
    Their VB series, well there it goes if they start pulling stuff out.

    And so if it is VB NET, so be it, where's VB7 then? In VB NET from what I've read and if it's NOT then it's still missing a lot of features that make BASIC BASIC.

    Why not convert to C++ if they are going to go to all the trouble?


    Scott


    ------------------
    Scott
    mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

    [This message has been edited by Scott Turchin (edited January 31, 2001).]

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X