I often don't understand what you're trying to say though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
You replied to what I posted but afraid you read between the lines. :)
Printable View
I often don't understand what you're trying to say though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
You replied to what I posted but afraid you read between the lines. :)
Please Steve, don't even try to go that path - they should learn from mistakes (very serious btw) made in .Net 1 and 1.1 instead of carrying them over to the new releases.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Also, if you developed some in-house tool doesn't mean that something plain-and-simple shouldn't be there. :rolleyes:
Something plain and simple might have been too hard to support for MS - who knows that the reasons were (I'm sure we both could google around and find lots of opinions).
This link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ualbasic70.asp
indicates that PrintDocument does most of what Printer in VB6 did - I've not done any production printing in .Net yet so I can't evaluate the strengths or weaknesses or differences...
But back in the old days we had PRINT # and TAB() statements to make reports - doing anything remotely like fontsize changes or bold required that your learned "printer specific" escape sequences so you could talk to the printer in PCL.
But writing reusable code to accomplish a task is what it's all about anyway - in my opinion.
I've like what GDI has given me so far in .Net - it's very different than VB6 - but seems like some good "general purpose" graphical tools.
Again - I'm not in .Net enough for production code yet - so don't attack my ignorance ;)
You're kidding? printing in .NET is exponentially easier and more powerful than it was in VB6.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
No, it's not. I studied it and tried it myself. It takes much longer to get what the Printer.Print statement allowed you to get in a few lines of code.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrion
I would say that it is nigh on impossible to do something like this grid printing example or this form print component and doing a print preview with VB6's printer .print is a chore requiring extensive API work or a third party control.
After reading all messages, and deciding which direction to move to...is MS Access affected by any of this?
For my projects, Access is looking better and better.
And will second this opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
The Printer object is still available as usual in Access, even in Access 2007 so no need to worry, yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by sessi4ml
RobDog888: Regarding compatibility issues, maybe you can give an answer to a question I posted in one of my previous threads:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
http://vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=450883
Shortly speaking, is VB6 compatible with Office 2007?
Thanks in advance.
Yes, not much has changed at all, at least that I have come across.
Replied.
Thanks. This is very good news. Since I heard that all the Office documents changed their extensions, I thought there could be compatibility issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
It's a shame they dropped the idea. They could have carried out both projects at the same time. That way they would certainly have made more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Only compatibility in your automation code looking for doc when docx is the new 2007 type.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Replied again in other thread with extended info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
There was a [VB] 6.5 version that was under consideration, until it was killed off in the interest of focusing all their efforts on .NET.
They could've kept VB6 as unmanaged language (just like VC++)... That was the reason when many pros signed a petition to MS but it was denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Yes, I know it. I myself subscribed to that petition. Nevertheless, I was aware MS would not listen to us. It was a hell of a letdown. The idea that all the code I set aside over the last ten years would become useless has scared me ever since.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
One thing people sometimes overlook is that MS is still nimble enough that when they decide to go in a new direction, they simply do so. They recognized the challenge that the internet and Java were posing (though those challenges are more theoretical than real at this point), and they pretty much decided to go all "net" centric. The whole .NET paradigm was part of the result of that. In theory, they would get to the same "write once, run anywhere" capability that has always been the unfulfilled promise of JAVA. MS wants to be in the game if web apps come into being. As dumb as I still think that idea is, they want to be ready if it happens....or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Because of this, I think the whole abrupt .NET switch makes a certain amount of sense to them. They see the future going in a radically different direction, and are trying to get out ahead of it. Yesterdays program is yesterdays news. Microsoft to Esposito: Change or die.
Like it or not (and I know which one you would choose), that is pretty much their business strategy, and it makes a certain amount of sense to me from that perspective.
Yes, but if they try to impose the wrong change on their customers, MS may die as well. I am not alone. There is an entire community that does not feel like making such a change. Byte code is not the best solution to adopt if you develop commercial software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Besides, I don't see this "write once, run anywhere" capability that much in .NET. Mono is the only attempt at porting the Framework to another platform but so far it does not look like a winning marketing strategy (I haven't read any anthusiastic articles about Mono yet).
VB6 could have been integrated with the Web in a more advanced way if MS had wanted to. ASP could have been improved without the .NET Framework.
What made MS unique was its OS which dictated the standards to the technological world. If MS opens its doors to alternative (non-Windows) platforms, people may take those alternatives into serious consideration and may just switch to them abandoning the expensive solutions proposed by MS.
In my opinion, the real threat to MS does not come from Java but from the open source world in general. Just think of Linux, as far as operating systems are concerned, or Open Office in the field of applications.
The 'web' mentality is that server-side applications are the future. No-one cares what they compile to as you'll never see the code from the client anyway.
It's all about choosing the right architecture and the right technology.
I think that server-side applications can be integrated with, and even embedded in, client-side applications. For instance, VB6 can embed a WebBrowser control and interact with the Web.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
If all the application resides on the server, you could have to face problems of speed, connection etc. So, it is often a good idea to process the data on the client side and, when the job is complete, transfer it to the server. Now, VB6 was perfectly able to do that without relying on the .NET Framework.
The Framework makes a lot of sense if you want to produce Web based software only (ASP.NET is just great) but, as far as desktop applications are concerned, I have my doubts that it is convenient to develop them in .NET.
So don't.
Obviously, I am not going to switch to .NET in the foreseeable future. My only concern is that MS may force me to switch in the long run because they could break compatibility between future versions of Windows (after Vista) and VB6 applications (or even 32 bit software in general).Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I dont think MS will break compatibility with 32/64 bit as I was just researching Server 2003 R2 x64 compatibility to run SQL Server 2005 32 bit and it does support running it. so I would think that they would have to continue supporting it for several years at a minimum as their server software is barely coming out with 64 bit versions and it will be years before the 32 bit versions are phased out.
quick question on 64 bit ... as far as drivers etc. go, where they say 64 bit .. thats only if the OS is 64 bit right, not the CPU?
I believe so but if the OS is 64 bit then the CPU "should" be 64 bit too.
Let's hope so. And let's also hope that the VB6 basic runtimes will be shipped with the next version of Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
right, but i mean many peeps have 64 bit CPUs but use regular windows ..
just was wondering as they provided 64 bit drivers for a USB dongle but i wasnt including it in the customization (of the inf file) as typically the clients would be using standard windows XP pro regardless of their CPU. :D
I fully agree. However, MS, like everybody else, is guessing at what the right strategy is to move forward. They guessed (and it was nothing but a guess) that the place they were at was an evolutionary dead end, so they decided on a "fresh start". There are plenty of examples of where a bold move like this worked well (Apple after the crappy OS7), but there are probably as many examples where people fell flat on their faces. Time will tell whether they guessed right or not. Will the people they attract outweigh those they have lost? Time will actually NOT tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
It was always the promise of JAVA, too, and it was much derided in the industry mags I read. I haven't seen it in JAVA, either, so .NET isn't exactly falling short of that low mark. They both haven't lived up to their intended promise.Quote:
Besides, I don't see this "write once, run anywhere" capability that much in .NET.
I might know of another, the name of which (given by Bill G himself) would be blocked by the AUP, but I'm not sure what came of it.Quote:
Mono is the only attempt at porting the Framework to another platform but so far it does not look like a winning marketing strategy (I haven't read any anthusiastic articles about Mono yet).
There are plenty of things that could have been done with VB6, but they didn't.Quote:
VB6 could have been integrated with the Web in a more advanced way if MS had wanted to. ASP could have been improved without the .NET Framework.
MS is plenty afraid that this will happen if they DON'T open their doors to alternative concepts.Quote:
What made MS unique was its OS which dictated the standards to the technological world. If MS opens its doors to alternative (non-Windows) platforms, people may take those alternatives into serious consideration and may just switch to them abandoning the expensive solutions proposed by MS.
Open source has a long ways to go before it takes over Windows. They need to do these two things:Quote:
In my opinion, the real threat to MS does not come from Java but from the open source world in general. Just think of Linux, as far as operating systems are concerned, or Open Office in the field of applications.
1) Make something that is dead simple to configure. My mother has a hard time with Windows, she wouldn't go near anything in any way harder. I expect that the majority of end users are like that.
2) Support the great majority of games. The history of PC sales have been a long littany of people overlooking the importance of games driving how people choose computers. Throughout the 80's and 90's, every new chip was written up in the trade journals with some statements along these lines "these chips are way too powerful for anybody to need them in home systems, so they will be used in high-end servers only." All those statements were utterly wrong. The first adopters were techno-geeks who were willing to spend the big bucks for the cutting edge hardware. Much of that was driven by games. Games are still driving computer advances, but fortunately, the trades are starting to understand that, and the brain-dead statements about how home users "don't need" more power, are basically gone.
However, this doesn't seem to be fully realized by the Linux community, because people mention how you can get "open office" software. As if that would make people switch. I don't give a rats ass about Excel or Word, and neither do most end users. Can you play Halo? Can you play Oblivion? etc? Give me PCWrite. Give me WordStart. But if you take away the diversity of games, you have lost your sale.
I suspect that these two factors will be the key factor on whether a new OS could break into Windows dominance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
There's something really ironic about server-side apps. That model has already been tried in the 70s and 80s, when all programs ran on mainframes with terminals in the cubicles. As soon as people could get whole computers on their desks, they abandoned the mainframes, and to heck with what advantages existed.
Now we are saying that "server-side" is the great new thing. Actually, it is the rejected old thing, and we'll see whether or not it gets adopted or not. Personally, I am not optimisitic.
MF still plays big in finance and insurance, funds... Everything goes in cycles - from styles to technologies.
Don't be surprised to see men with long hairs, bell bottoms and high heels again in say 10-15 years. :D
Too late, bell bottoms have already staged a mini-resurection.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
I think it's more that when something's in vogue, people tend to try and use it for everything, including a lot of things it's not designed for. And then they discover that it isn't the solution to all of the world's problems, and abandon it in disgust.
Abandoning millions of users to their destiny was a stupid move. They will never rely on MS's products again for the fear of being abandoned a second time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Right now, I don't think that people care about cross-platform compatibility. Today the only OS that really counts is Windows. Nevertheless, .NET might jeopardize its monopoly in the future by opening the doors to alternative platforms. Alternative OS's should be ignored by MS and made as incompatible as possible with Windows. No platform will ever prevail over Windows if it remains the way it is today. .NET is the real threat.Quote:
It was always the promise of JAVA, too, and it was much derided in the industry mags I read. I haven't seen it in JAVA, either, so .NET isn't exactly falling short of that low mark. They both haven't lived up to their intended promise.
This does not mean that it's too late. What MS needs is just a little humbleness. They should recognize they made a mistake when they discontinued VB6 and come up with a new version.Quote:
There are plenty of things that could have been done with VB6, but they weren't.
Again, I don't agree. They have the monopoly in their hands. If they open their doors to Linux, they will be stabbed in the back.Quote:
MS is plenty afraid that this will happen if they DON'T open their doors to alternative concepts.
The fact that an OS is better than Windows does not mean it will break its dominance. Macintosh has always been recognized as a superior OS but nevertheless it has never prevailed over Windows. Again and once forever, the real danger comes from MS itself and it is represented by .NET and its stupid byte code technology, which is just an apish imitation of Java.Quote:
Open source has a long way to go before it takes over Windows. They need to do these two things:
1) Make something that is dead simple to configure.
2) Support the great majority of games.
I suspect that these two factors will be the key factor on whether a new OS could break into Windows dominance.
Hmm, this is thought provoking. If MS wanted to they could rework VB 6 and rebadge it under a different name perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by eposito
I think its too late to produce another version of VB 6 as its too confusing and may hurt them if they used the same name.
Why would it hurt them? Too many people don't want to switch to .NET and they would love to buy a new version of classic VB. Those who like .NET would continue to use .NET. After all, they still produce C++ which allows you to develop unmanaged code.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Well if they improved VB 6 then it would make for less reasons to use .NET other then the Framework and OOP. I'm not into marketing but if they have a good product like VB 6 then wouldnt you want to market it to make more $$$$?
Developing software in VB6 means producing programs for MS Windows only. This would keep users from taking alternative OS's into consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Developing software in .NET means producing programs for Linux also (think of Mono). This would lead users to take alternative OS's into consideration.
It is in MS's interest to keep users from switching to alternative platforms, isn't it? This also means making (or saving) more $$$$.
It sure seems like we have beat this issue to death in other threads - and I'm certainly not a PC-era expert...
But having come from solid O/S's and languages specific to those O/S's I was shocked at what VB6 was. I never used VB5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 - but saw the remains of those earlier hobbyist constructs floating around in VB6. I'm not trying to insult anyone - so please don't take it that way - but the language looked and feeled a lot like the Thinkertoys or TRS-80 BASIC's of the early 80's (also of which I never had any real experience with).
And the API's - oh my God - what a mess. I came from DEC - where we had system libraries. We also had a $3000 documentation set - 20 books in 4-inch binders - describing in great detail what the system libraries offered you in your language of choice.
Instead VB6 gets you sub-classing to catch a windows message of form activation? How about true async operations? Flexgrids that you can't edit? File I/O that was just plain primitive. No low level memory capabilities.
It was like I lost all the power of the tools I was familiar with and not given anything to optimally utilize the new O/S I'm working in.
At any rate - I have great respect for MS in that they started a huge development project - create a framework that's incredibly detailed. Create a set of languages from scratch. Lose all the old problems - forget all the old tricks - start all over again and do it right. Do it based on the hardware and techniques needed by the new world (which is just so different then 1985 - isn't it?).
We've been doing apps here since 1980 and have re-generated ourselves probably 10 times. RSTS/E machines, VAX's, rdbms engines we developed in-house. I love to create a new version - totally from scratch. All the good you learned during the prior existence - keep that - all you want to do based on your current ideas - add those.
The problem is that .NET is not the best choice you can make if you want to develop desktop commercial applications. Do you know any of the software sold by MS that was developed in .NET?
Office 2003/2007 as my understanding is that it they were partially created with .NET.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Their development cycles are years long - they aren't like us - developing code to sell to a couple of dozen customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I doubt Office 2003, cause im running it on other PCs without the framework installed. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I can feel this thread going in circles, and it's making me dizzy trying to follow it.
You keep repeating this opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
No-one is going to force you to use it!
There are hundreds of programming languages in the world. Find one that you like. Find something that works for you, that you enjoy using.
And then use it.
Bashing a product, or a company, gets repetitive. Bashing Microsoft gets especially repetitive.
If you took a strategic gamble by investing most of your resources into developing something completely new, wouldn't you be a little frustrated if people clung to the old, forcing you to support it? Wouldn't you want to do everything you could to drive the take-up of your new product?
That's what Microsoft has done, and is doing, with .NET.
Refreshing their old technology would undermine their goal of attaining widespread use of their new platform.
But they're not holding you hostage, forcing you at gunpoint to use it.
Of course Microsoft want to retain their customers, as well as attract new ones. Ultimately though, they're not out to please all of them. They're out to turn a profit, and they're not doing a shabby job of it.
If you're frustrated that you might have to abandon your favourite tool, that's understandable. By all means have a rant: to your colleagues; to your employees; to your significant other/siblings/parents/grandparents/neighbour/cat/neighbour's cat.
And then get on with life.
No doubt .. done told yall that .. they should have stuck with classic ASP and VB6 then all would be good in my book .. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Wrong. If they make your VB6 applications incompatible with future versions of their OS, you will be forced to use .NET.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
So, judging by what you said, Office 2003 does not rest on the framework. I wonder if you can install Office 2007 on Windows XP without having .NET.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
....Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I have already started using Delphi. My latest software is written in Delphi and it works quite well.
The problem regards my enormous VB6 code base, that will become useless sooner or later.
From:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/net.../aa497336.aspx
And isn't delphi using the .net frameword as well now...Quote:
Adoption Momentum
The .NET Framework has been live since version 1.0 was released in January 2002. It has achieved numerous adoption milestones:
Compilers for over 20 programming languages are available for use with the .NET Framework.
Over 350 tools are available from third-party vendors to aid in .NET Framework development, including approximately 250 add-ins for Visual Studio .NET, as well as IDEs from Borland and Macromedia.
Over 350 books have been published or soon will be published discussing software development with the .NET Framework.
Over 750 .NET Framework user groups exist worldwide.
Millions of users every month visit the .NET Code Wise Community Web sites.
Over one million developers are using Visual Studio .NET.
Thousands of leading companies, from Autodesk to Credit Suisse First Boston to Honeywell to Xerox, are realizing tremendous cost savings, new opportunities for integration, and improved time-to-market by developing and deploying their applications with the .NET Framework.
Microsoft is aggressively deploying applications built using the .NET Framework. MSN®, Microsoft CRM, Windows XP Media Center Edition, and the Microsoft.com Smart 404 are just a few of the many Microsoft applications already built using the .NET Framework.
From
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/...9129932,00.htm
Quote:
Borland has a long history of producing development tools and IDE's and with the release of Delphi 8 for the Microsoft .NET Framework they are putting this experience to good use.
As the name implies, this version of Delphi was created to leverage the Microsoft .NET framework, enabling Delphi applications to run on the framework without any additional software or redistributable files required.
Apple does this routinely, and they maintain their standard 5% market share. I would expect that MS feels confident that they can get away with this, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
That's a valid school of thought, but I don't believe it is one that MS is entirely sold on. They appear to be concerned that they can't "rest on their laurels", which I think is wise, considering that it hasn't worked for anyone else.Quote:
Right now, I don't think that people care about cross-platform compatibility. Today the only OS that really counts is Windows. Nevertheless, .NET might jeopardize its monopoly in the future by opening the doors to alternative platforms. Alternative OS's should be ignored by MS and made as incompatible as possible with Windows. No platform will ever prevail over Windows if it remains the way it is today. .NET is the real threat.
In my opinion, they did: .NET2005. Both 2002 and 2003 were radically different from VB6, and required a pretty substantial change. However, 2005 has moved much closer to VB6, putting back in several things such as default instances, defalut behavior, fix on the fly debugging (or whatever that is called), etc. Thus, 2005 is more of a VB6++ in that it is an OO based VB6.Quote:
This does not mean that it's too late. What MS needs is just a little humbleness. They should recognize they made a mistake when they discontinued VB6 and come up with a new version.
Since VB6 was almost identical to VB5, you could say that 6 was actually 5.5, and 2005 is actually the true VB6: A truly improved true new version of VB.
Both VB6 and .NET need something installed for them to run. The former needs the Virtual Machine, the latter needs the runtime. I don't believe you even technically need a byte code based program anymore (can compile to native op codes, though maybe only with a third party tool at this time).
Therefore, you have to ask yourself, at what point of convergence does .NET become the VB6++ that you are talking about, or was did you just not want to move from VB6 at all?
Could be. It's happened many times in the past. A monopoly is not proof against it, just look at what has happened with consoles in the 80s and 90s. The "must have" toy that dominated the market, vanished after a short dominance. Perhaps when each one (Atarti, Nintendo) stood alone on the peak, they, too, thought that they could remain up there for as long as they could see.Quote:
Again, I don't agree. They have the monopoly in their hands. If they open their doors to Linux, they will be stabbed in the back.
The problem with Macintosh was that they had a fairly superior OS back in the late 80s and very early 90s, and didn't change after that. By the time OS7 came along (and really OS6), they were coasting on a reputation they were no longer desrving of. What they had was a fanatical core following, and a horribly buggy and unstable OS.Quote:
The fact that an OS is better than Windows does not mean it will break its dominance. Macintosh has always been recognized as a superior OS but nevertheless it has never prevailed over Windows.
Delphi is shipped in two different versions: one allows you to develop standalone native applications, the other .NET ones. If only VB did the same...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I would love to switch to .NET if what you said were true, i.e. if .NET gave me the option to compile to native code. Right now, the only serious third-party tool that allows you to do so is Thinstall, but have you seen how much it costs? Why should I spend a fortune to do something that VB6 (or Delphi) allows me to do natively?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes you can but as I was saying partially written with .net doesnt mean it runs on the framework. That would require Office to be using the framework which it currently does not (up to Office 2007 so far).Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
How can an application be written with .net and run as native software, i.e. without resting on the framework?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I don't know if this is the right answer, but it is one possible answer:
The current dev tool from MS is Visual Studio 2005.NET. Therefore, you could say that anything developed with that tool is developed with .NET. However, you can use that tool to write unmanaged C/C++, which doesn't use the framework at all. Still written "with .NET", but not really the same thing.
I am probably missing something. I thought C/C++ had nothing to do with .NET because the applications developed in these languages are unmanaged, just like VB6 applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
If MS Office was partially written in C/C++ then it is not .NET software and it would mean that MS has not switched to .NET yet.
Well, there's managed and unmanaged, but they are both wrapped into the .NET package. My point is that .NET is both an abreviation for managed code (like VB.NET and C#), but it is also the name of the dev environment which also allows unmanaged code. Basically, I'm saying that it could be a matter of semantics, where MS may not be defining .NET the way we are. RD could probably answer that better, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
True, but the runtimes are installed by default on XP.
Then again Vista has the framework by default also.
Vista comes with all four versions of the framework installed by default. This makes it more receptive to .net apps. Even with VB 6, the OS' never came with the VB 6 runtimes pre-installed by default, nor will they. :p
XP has it installed, at least SP2, which is all I use.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Edit. Ive run my stand alone apps on SP1 versions also.