VB6 on Windows Vista

Of course you will, but this does not mean that ignoring the new MS OS for the time being is a wise decision. When Vista comes out, Windows XP will be withdrawn from the market. Whoever buys a new computer (businesses included) will have to deal with Vista.

Anyway, I find what you say applicable to .NET. In my opinion, if you develop desktop programs, switching to .NET could be counterproductive. That's why I am particularly happy that the demise of VB6 has not arrived yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I develop business applications and businesses don't just do upgrades because something new and cool came out and so far it's been quite in my neighborhood as nobody expressed any remote wishes... so I guess I'll be alright for awhile. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

... Whoever buys a new computer (businesses included) will have to deal with Vista...

---

That is why companies (again, in my neighborhood) are buying more now so they won't have to bother for the next few years...
Anyway, I will no longer reply to this thread unless something more constructive is posted.

Best regards. :wave:

Moved :)

Wel I'm sure MS will also make available the option to downgrade to XP as they did with previous OS versions and VB 6. You know you can buy VB.NET and downgrade it to VB 6, or at least there was that option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Wel I'm sure MS will also make available the option to downgrade to XP as they did with previous OS versions and VB 6. You know you can buy VB.NET and downgrade it to VB 6, or at least there was that option.

---

I'm afraid there was a little misunderstanding: here we are not talking about downgrading to VB6 or to XP. The problem is another: your customers may have Windows Vista and they may not be willing to downgrade.

Using VB6 still makes sense in that it is still compatible with Vista. On the other hand, ignoring Vista may be dangerous because, if you don't test your VB6 software under this new OS, it may be incompatible with it and you may lose customers.

Conclusion: developers should upgrade to Vista or use it together with XP in order to produce VB6 software which is compatible with both OS's. That's all I wanted to say.

Well thats what I was saying from my earlier post.

Also, about the upgrade/downgrade post was in reply to RB post. ;)

This is kind of off topic but, RobDog I see that your running Vista RTM. Do you see or notice any differences(minor or major) betwwen RC1 and RTM? I am running RC1 right now and I like it alot! No crashes yet, a few quirks but nothing major! It seems fairly strong.

I didnt install any of the pre-release versions. I was waiting for the RTM version.

No problems at all yet and I like it alot. :thumb:

What kind of memory usage do you see? I'm at about 500MB, with no apps running!

I'm seeing 820 Mbs with IE open (4 tabs), control panel window, and my computer window (explorer).

the memory usage is misleading in vista... i until recently had 512 MB of ram and vista would quickly report using say 400-500 MB... however i could load and run apps with good speed.

now, if under xp i were to have those numbers my hdd would be thrashing like crazy, and the system would crawl.

Maybe its because Vista manages the Virtual Memory better? Your pagefile is picking up the extra needed memory.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just upgrade to .NET??? :confused:

In some cases that's easier said then done. Management may take the philosophy of "well, as long as it still works in Vista....." and then upgrade the OS but not the development platform.

-tg

I agree - changing development platform isn't always simple, it depends on the size of your application, business impact that most likely to happen, complexity, etc... In some cases it won't even be possible, in some cases it won't just make any sense...

Think about those remaining shops that are on mainframes? When I say "mainframe," think the traditional sense of the word.... COBOL, MVS, etc.

I had a job opp that was with a firm running old VAX Mainframes... they are 10 years behind, at the very least... their migration path will be seriously expensive.

Converting from a VB6 environment to a .NET environment is pretty tough, but mostly the $10k cost of getting .NET Enterprise.... it takes a progressive company, tired of their current applications...

I have been down the mainframe to client/server/n-tier conversions. I used to work for the State of Delaware, and they used ADABAS/Natural on a z600 mainframe, through a thing called a "broker connection" to VB6 or Oracle based applications. Broker is NOT a SQL emulator, either. It simply kicks off a Natural program and returns a string of data, that needs to be parsed. Yea, a bit piggish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realbogus

...Converting from a VB6 environment to a .NET environment is pretty tough, but mostly the $10k cost of getting .NET Enterprise.

---

You must be kidding - it could cost millions just because you would have to re-write everything from scratch...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the182guy

MS are shooting themselves in the foot if they don't make vista support VB6, think about it, millions of users/programmers using VB6 apps today, if vista not support them, a lot of people won't go near vista

---

They've already done this by discontinuing VB6. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

You must be kidding - it could cost millions just because you would have to re-write everything from scratch...

---

I was looking at the initial outlay. That number alone is enough to scare some number cruchers - and you know it.

The millions to rewrite (which is entirely dependant on the scope of the rewrite) is something that most accountant types can't wrap their arms around. Believe it or not, from my experience, it's harder to get that initial outlay than it is to do the conversion.

Well eventually you will need to rewrite it no matter what. The question is only when and not if.

What if you wrote your app in BASIC back in the day and then came along windows. You would eventually have the requirement to rewrite it for windows. Not much difference from whats happening here. :)

more reason to look to another OS ... eventually that is .. why cant someone bring out anything decent that unlike MS doesnt require a major hardware upgrade every time they scratch their butt ... I mean Win95 was faster than any of these other crap OS's they came out with .. why couldnt they just fix that and offer driver and theme upgrades. :afrog:

we'd then be able to buy $99 PCs that would work with our latest OS .. :D
BTW . .. anyone ever see XP Sp1 running on a 233Mhz PC .. man that is soooooo slowww ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

more reason to look to another OS ... eventually that is .. why cant someone bring out anything decent that unlike MS doesnt require a major hardware upgrade every time they scratch their butt ... I mean Win95 was faster than any of these other crap OS's they came out with .. why couldnt they just fix that and offer driver and theme upgrades. :afrog:

we'd then be able to buy $99 PCs that would work with our latest OS .. :D
BTW . .. anyone ever see XP Sp1 running on a 233Mhz PC .. man that is soooooo slowww ...

---

Win95 was just a shell over DOS, that's why it had to go, same with 98 and ME.

If you are bitching about costs and new hardware, be thankful you are not in Apple-land... every new version is a total revision, requiring new hardware and software.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Well eventually you will need to rewrite it no matter what. The question is only when and not if.

What if you wrote your app in BASIC back in the day and then came along windows. You would eventually have the requirement to rewrite it for windows. Not much difference from whats happening here. :)

---

no doubt.

Several years ago, the State of Delaware (certian agencies, that is) turned Oracle into a verb. They thought it was the holey grail of software that would make everything perfect. However, to buy 3000 seats, at $1000.00 a shot, plus, all the licenses for the development tools, and several million had been spent before the first line of code was written. They declined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

... anyone ever see XP Sp1 running on a 233Mhz PC .. man that is soooooo slowww ...

---

I've seen it... :) so it is slow but it also is 10 years old techonlogy so what are you complaining about? It was designed for what was out there then, wasn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I've seen it... :) so it is slow but it also is 10 years old techonlogy so what are you complaining about? It was designed for what was out there then, wasn't it?

---

It shows how slow MS make every new OS .. MS Windows .. it just keeps getting Slower ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

It shows how slow MS make every new OS .. MS Windows .. it just keeps getting Slower ....

---

The real problem is the philosophy behind it... if they could get past the complexity of a CISC chip, we would be better off... but sadly, that ain't happening...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

It shows how slow MS make every new OS .. MS Windows .. it just keeps getting Slower ....

---

Hardware .. it just keeps getting Faster ....

i suppose you were also shocked to see that doom 3 doesn't run well on a p2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dis1411

Hardware .. it just keeps getting Faster ....

i suppose you were also shocked to see that doom 3 doesn't run well on a p2

---

i dont play games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

It shows how slow MS make every new OS .. MS Windows .. it just keeps getting Slower ....

---

Well if you never upgrade your hardware then how would expect to run an improved OS with more features and security and still maintain the same or better performance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Well if you never upgrade your hardware then how would expect to run an improved OS with more features and security and still maintain the same or better performance?

---

Thats not the point, ofcourse everyone upgrades their hardware, the point is that MS keeps making slower and slower Operating Systems ... ;)

In relation to what? Older hardware?

Part of the problem is the level of sophistication required to protect the system. Thank the shear proliferation of Windows for that necessity.

Then add in all the bling for video support and we have a problem... one that even Apple is having to confront.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

Thats not the point, ofcourse everyone upgrades their hardware, the point is that MS keeps making slower and slower Operating Systems ... ;)

---

Then your only solution is to never upgrade your OS as you are adament about ever upgrading your hardware. :D

They are not making slower software, its just that it does more and more requiring more overhead. If you want it to stay the same or faster then dont upgrade and uninstall all your unnecessary software, run just the bare minimum with no features or components.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Then your only solution is to never upgrade your OS as you are adament about ever upgrading your hardware. :D

They are not making slower software, its just that it does more and more requiring more overhead. If you want it to stay the same or faster then dont upgrade and uninstall all your unnecessary software, run just the bare minimum with no features or components.

---

Uhhh .. I know 100% how to tweak XP ... i already run extremely stripped down versions .. but anyway since noone seems to understand .. have a nice day .. :eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

Uhhh .. I know 100% how to tweak XP ... i already run extremely stripped down versions .. but anyway since noone seems to understand .. have a nice day .. :eek2:

---

I personally did try to understand you but failed miserably... :rolleyes: Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I personally did try to understand you but failed miserably... :rolleyes: Sorry.

---

LOL .. anyway can we run VB6 on Vista .. or it wont run but the apps should work once they are designed for XP ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

Uhhh .. I know 100% how to tweak XP ... i already run extremely stripped down versions .. but anyway since noone seems to understand .. have a nice day .. :eek2:

---

Ditto :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

LOL .. anyway can we run VB6 on Vista .. or it wont run but the apps should work once they are designed for XP ?

---

What??? ... just kidding ... :) Anyway, the time will tell. :wave:

to be honest, it will be a while before I upgrade to Vista... but it will be part of my upgrade path for my new motherboard. :)

Yes, its always wise to plan ahead for the future instead of running away from it. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Yes, its always wise to plan ahead for the future instead of running away from it. :D

---

apart from the budget unit, all the parts I use now for the CCTV DVRs are ready for Vista ... even if only by upgrading the memory, video card, or CPU .. the mobos are ready for 4Gigs of DDR2 667, 1066 CPU's Core 2, etc, and PCI Express Video X 16 (1), PCI Express X 1 (2). The cost difference is only $30 so its worth it. ;) Now whether or not the PC DVR Card Manufacturers will ever develop their software for Vista is another issue, or maybe "when" is the question, as it is not going to be anytime soon.