Woo-hoo, I top page 2!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Hey, I'm sure some of you known about the online version of Visual Studio, but If not, here ya go:
https://online.visualstudio.com/
I haven't tried it.
Printable View
Woo-hoo, I top page 2!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Hey, I'm sure some of you known about the online version of Visual Studio, but If not, here ya go:
https://online.visualstudio.com/
I haven't tried it.
I tried it. Its having you try Azure for 12 months free then 200 bucks a year after or something like that. Dont do it.
Just in time for this week!
Attachment 172483
https://www.fark.com/comments/106266...anksgiving#new
but Visual Studio 6 doesn't work with Windows 3.11 :confused:
Then place it in a glass cabinet. You'll have something to show guests! :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by 2kaud
Interestingly, the small print at the bottom indicates that it should, i.e. 16-bit applications.... NOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2kaud
Attachment 172501
Goes to show that those who make up these things, don't really know VB6, just a passing acquaintance.
I went by what I've read from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_BasicQuote:
Originally Posted by passelInterestingly, the small print at the bottom indicates that it should, i.e. 16-bit applications.... NOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter PorterThen place it in a glass cabinet. You'll have something to show guests! :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by 2kaud
Attachment 172501
Goes to show that those who make up these things, don't really know VB6, just a passing acquaintance.
Just forgot that this passage was about VB 5 while I was Photoshopping. :oQuote:
With version 5.0 (February 1997), Microsoft released Visual Basic exclusively for 32-bit versions of Windows. Programmers who preferred to write 16-bit programs were able to import programs written in Visual Basic 4.0 to Visual Basic 5.0, and Visual Basic 5.0 programs can easily be converted to Visual Basic 4.0.
One of my better creations. :bigyello:
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ersi&p=5422329
zzzzzzzzzzzz
By the way....I win this one :bigyello:
umm... no :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Um yes :bigyello:
Wot - no New Year best wishes post?
Nope
Of course not... it's 2020 now.... we should all be seeing things clearly. No need to wish a happy anything to anyone.
-tg
Theres no way im letting a gnome win this one.
You tell him, Jacob. You tell him.
You come back and say that ot the top o' me head and kick ye' in da shins!
-tg
Technically, 20/20 vision means that you see things at 20 meters with the same clarity that the average person sees things at 20 meters. Therefore, 20/20 vision isn't clear or perfect, it's average. So, in this year, we'll see things averagely.
For my new year's resolution, I wanted some clarity, but yet still wanted it just fuzzy enough for improvement, so I'm going with 720p.
-tg
Try 1080p :bigyello:
Feet actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It shouldn't matter should it? That distance is "far", so any distance over that will have the same focus characteristics.
Im already thinking of dirty jokes to go with these feet and meters...
Yeah, I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I know when I was in grade school I had 20/10 vision in both eyes, so I could read text on the chart at 20 feet that "normal" vision had to be at 10 feet to read. By the end of high school I think I was "down" to 20/20. Now, I have astigmatism pretty bad, so who knows how good the actual focus is as I have six or more images overlapping on the retina which swamps the focusing capability, and of course the orientation of the stigma pattern on each eye is different, so adds to the fuzziness.
I'm not sure if it may be a square of the distance type thing, or if it really comes down to the same measurement regardless of units, i.e. if someone has 20/100 vision, meaning they have to be 20 feet from an object that a normal sighted person can read at 100 feet, that it would scale linearly, i.e. they would need to be at 20 meters to read something that a normal sighted person can read at 100 meters.
Does the difference in 80 feet between the two people in the first case, resolve to the same difference in 262+ feet in the second case when the thing they are looking at is 20 feet versus 65+ feet in front of them.?
I don't know. I just know the scale on the charts is based on feet, not inches or meters. I would think that being 20 inches from something vs 100 inches from it, the difference in relative apparent size of what you're looking at may be different compared to 20 ft and 100 ft.
I think if I was looking at a playing card from 20 inches or 100 inches, it would be pretty easy to tell what it was. If I was looking at it from 20 feet, then I could perhaps still make it out, but 100 feet, I don't think so, therefore I think the units of distance may be an important factor when measuring acuity, but my examples could be specious.
What did the sailor tell the optometrist?
Eye, eye, captain.
Why did the girl keep losing her contact lenses?
She just couldn’t keep her eye on them.
groan! :p :cry:
I see your having visions today. :rolleyes:
I have visions of winning this piece :bigyello:
Your vision is flawed.
I have visions of millions still using Windows 7 after today. :bigyello:
Windows.... just another pane in the glass....
-tg