Should i learn VB6?

[jmcilhinney]

It will certainly become true if MS Windows no longer supports the VB6 runtime at some future point.....

Except that doesn't actually answer the question. If it may or may not become true in the future, why all the complaining about it now and in the past, when it isn't/wasn't true? Any language could lose support at any time. Should we all complain about every such language now, just in case?

[SearchingDataOnly]

That year, when Microsoft announced that it would no longer update VB6, and support for VB6 only lasted until 2006 (or 2008), this meant that many products developed using VB6 could not acquire new customers (at least sales would drop significantly), and using Java or .NET to develop new products requires re-organizing the development team and consumes a lot of time and money. The bigger problem is that .NET does not have any advantages over VB6 in developing desktop software. If .NET has a huge advantage over VB6, obviously no one will complain.

In addition, I don't think we are complaining about Microsoft. We are just thinking back to some unpleasant past events and explaining from the technical and practical level that .NET is not an ideal product that most VB6 developers want. Now we are actively saving ourselves. VB6-2020(RC5/RC6), TwinBasic, RadBasic are examples of our self-help. We don't know when Olaf's new compiler and TwinBasic, RadBasic will be launched, but VB6-2020 (RC5/RC6) has been used for more than 10 years.

Quantitative changes cause qualitative changes, and VB6 developers will eventually complete self-salvation.

[wes4dbt]

Except that doesn't actually answer the question. If it may or may not become true in the future, why all the complaining about it now and in the past, when it isn't/wasn't true? Any language could lose support at any time. Should we all complain about every such language now, just in case?

Yeah I don't remember VB6 coming with a Life Time Guarantee.

Let me clarify, I don't give a dam what language you chose. My comment was I don't understand people in threads on this subject saying things like this,

I have to agree with that, I hate it when the language I am coding in goes obsolete before I have finished my project...

It's nonsense.

[IndicSoftware]

To change the mood of the thread I will just relate our experience in developing a software for our client.

A few years (around 2017 end) back. We bagged a project in which we have to build an Image Editor that would have features similar to the famouns and most widely used image editing leader Photoshop.

Being a die hard VB6 fan we started the project in VB6 and use PhotoDemon as a base but we soon started running into walls like we could not add Mask Layers functionality to it and it was proving to be very slow in processing large images captured from digital cameras as high MP, etc.

Midway we we hired two .NET developers with 3+ years of experience, got our hands on the famous then open source Paint.net (Open PDN) we found that it was even worse than PhotoDemon in performance. We observed actually Paint.net was using a lot of assemblies created in C/C++ so if we need to correct something in the assemblies we will need to hire VC developers.

I personally could not believe that Paint.net would be such a bad performer so checked with the now close source version of Paint.net for performance and found that it is way better compared to its last open source version but still it was taking ages in applying certain effects (for example Gaussian blur) and photo adjustments and corrections.

Again midway we hired two more Delphi developers (and of course sacked the .net developers as we had not use of them) and started programming the project from scratch.

After 700 days of coding and re coding we finally managed to complete our assignment almost 10 months behind schedule. And the client understood our problem and was ok with the delay.

When we supplied our client with the final working copy for testing they were just stunned with the looks and performance of the software. They tested it vigerously for a full 15 days before confirming that it really works as they has visualized and expected.

After a month of bug fixing and fine tuning finally the product is released under the name of PhotoSense. For those who may be interested in check this out please click here.

So the moral of the story is that we need to use the right tool for the right job.

[SearchingDataOnly]

In my impression, the ranking of programming languages on Windows in terms of software performance is as follows:

VC > Delphi >= VB6 > .NET

But Olaf said that during the development of RC5/RC6, he found that the performance of VB6 reached or even exceeded some C++ libs in many cases. I guess using RC6.Cario as the drawing engine, its efficiency should be able to reach the level of PhotoShop.

In most cases, the performance of the software developed by VB6 is good enough. Now, I'm trying to develop CodeEditor with VB6, I need to find a solution that can make my CodeEditor have a big improvement in performance, at least 80% of the performance of Scintilla.

[Niya]

.NET does not have any advantages over VB6 in developing desktop software.

You guys can't help spreading these lies can you...

I actually think you are trolling now to be honest.

[SearchingDataOnly]

.NET does not have any advantages over VB6 in developing desktop software.

You guys can't help spreading these lies can you...

I actually think you are trolling now to be honest.

OK, let's focus the debate on this issue now. Can you now use some facts, data, or code to prove that .NET has a huge advantage over VB6 in developing desktop software?

Come on, show all your .NET knowledge.

Come up with some examples and codes that can prove your point. Please stop talking nonsense that has nothing to do with technology.

Edit:
Hope that this thread will not discuss other issues. we focus on the discussion ".NET has a huge advantage over VB6 in developing desktop software". Let everyone here see clearly who is lying.

[Niya]

OK, let's focus the debate on this issue now. Can you now use some facts, data, or code to prove that .NET has a huge advantage over VB6 in developing desktop software?

Come on, show all your .NET knowledge.

Edit:
Hope that this thread will not discuss other issues. we focus on the discussion ".NET has a huge advantage over VB6 in developing desktop software". Let everyone here see clearly who is lying.

I've already said all I have to say on the topic. I'm not going to rehash all that again. Also I created a thread in chit chat that's 50% poking fun at the topic and 50% serious. You can check that out to see what we actually love about modern Visual Studio versions and all in brings including VB.Net, the .Net Framework and .Net core. Part of the reason I made that thread also is to keep adding to it over time. Despite it's intended slight tongue-in-cheek nature, I will keep adding all the little things I've come to love about .Net and it's eco-system over the years as I remember them or come across things that I've been previously unaware. It should serve as a sort of record that's very specific instead of me just saying it's better.

[Schmidt]

Yeah I don't remember VB6 coming with a Life Time Guarantee.

But that's what you'd expect, especially when you base your livelihood on it.

A step like that (from a globally acting, financially thriving vendor, affecting a UserBase of Millions) was so far unheard of.

The company I had founded at that time, was certainly affected massively by MS' decision -
(which also with regards to time came basically without warning - no "generous deprecation-phase until the incompatible competing-product").

And before you bring up the fact, that VB6-Binaries currently still work (due to MS' announcement, to keep at least the vbruntime alive)...

At the time my company was financially hurt, there was no such guarantee from MS.

Instead - at that time - they actively touted "COM is dead" - and came up with stuff like:
"We are currently developing an entire Operating-System based on .NET"
(effectively saying, that they planned to cut-off the tech-foundation of VB6 -> COM).

That were the messages, which circled through the developer- and consulting-scene at that time -
and the reason, why we lost our (by far) biggest customer due to that propaganda -
(who were - in the end - migrating our mission-critical financial App to Java over the next 3 years -
thankfully with our consulting-help, which softened the blow somewhat).

So, for "big languages" (with developer-counts in the millions)...
you know - the ones you choose because the are "big and stable" -
the ones you plan to "build a tooling-codebase around and found a company upon" -
should (if they are vendor-based - and not completely OpenSource) come with at least "a decade of deprecation-warning",
until an incompatible successor hits the market.

Imagine what would happen, when Oracle (being financially sound) - out of the blue, would anounce:
"we cancel Java in favour of incompatible XYZ, and will not ship any JavaRuntimes anymore - beginning next year".

Not sure how old you are, but at that time C++, VB6, Delphi - and Java were the "big languages" for the Win-platform -
whereas nowadays you have the choice of "two dozen more" languages - though all of them with library-bindings,
which make "lang-switchery" quite effortless and less painful, compared to that time.

Olaf

[Niya]

But that's what you'd expect, especially when you base your livelihood on it.

We had a massively successful DOS based POS system written in QuickBasic in the early 90s. Windows eventually killed DOS and the vast differences between the two operating systems eventually forced a rewrite to be created. The DOS version was actually maintained well up until VB6 was created which is what the new program was written in. I have a plan to rewrite it yet again using the latest Visual Studio (haven't decided whether I'm going to to it in VB.Net or C#/.Net Framework or .Net Core ) within the next 2 years. I'm also toying with the idea(nothing too specific yet) about doing some kind of web-based version or at least complementary stuff that runs online. 20 years after that, if it's still popular and in demand, it will be rewritten again in whatever is the latest thing 20 years from now.

The point I'm making is that if you're not prepared to do what is necessary to keep up as old technology becomes obsolete and replaced by new tech, then you're in the wrong business. If the world operated by your principles, we'd all still be using DOS.

And on the topic of DOS and old tech, you don't think it as painful to move from DOS to Windows? I loved DOS. I thought it was the best OS ever. I hated Windows in the early days. It was big and clunky and clumsy to use. DOS was sleek, fast and streamlined. I thought Windows would just be a curiosity that would have faded back into obscurity once the novelty wore off. But guess what, that didn't happen and I learned to love Windows and I can certainly see the wisdom in leaving DOS behind now. The IT industry has always been like this. Nothing is meant to last forever. Even Windows itself will be obsolete one day. Are you prepared for that day? I am. I will hate it but I will do what is necessary if something eventually comes along and knock Windows into the dusts of history.

[baka]

that was a bad comparison.
DOS is another OS compared to Windows.

QuickBasic/Turbo Pascal (that I used) was created for DOS and not for windows.
but Visual Basic was created for Windows.

each time Windows changes, theres a chance old program will not work.
that I believe everyone, (yes Niya, we are not all stupid as you think) could mean old programs dont work.

Paint Shop Pro 9 is not working in Windows 10, and thats my favorite drawing program, but I can use Paint Shop 7 oddly enough.

that could also mean Visual Basic 6 could stop working, and that we all have been surprised that for each windows VB6 still worked, and still is.

what we are is in Windows and VB6 is still working. I have created tools that ten thousands have downloaded that works without any trouble, no installation, no dependencies and really fast and easy on the CPU usage.
when I compare other similar tools written in "modern languages" I can not say I feel behind. contrary, I feel that I can compete, with modern looking forms, fast and well compiled programs. maybe its not the top of the top, c++ would win, but who have time to create tools like that nowadays? and its time consuming. something I can do half the time using VB6.

so how can u say VB6 is old and obsolete when I still use it and very little bugs. and if there a bug, I usually can fix it within the hour. since VB6 IDE is so easy to navigate. so, VB6 is not obsolete, its still working, and if you think VB6 is obsolete, what about C and C++ that are very old languages. why not remove them as well?

[Niya]

that was a bad comparison.
DOS is another OS compared to Windows.

Are you seriously trying to bolster your argument by playing with words? Of course DOS is another OS but you know full well the focus is not on the fact that's it's a different OS. Do you not have anything better than this attempt at verbal trickery?

You are suggesting with these words that DOS is an alternative OS to Windows meant to live side by side with Windows. No. Windows was developed by MS as a successor, if it wasn't, it's development would have continued in parallel. Microsoft stopped development of DOS as soon as they migrated Windows to the NT kernel. They did that because they wanted Windows to replace DOS, not because they wanted to provide an alternative. Even if we were to take you at your word on DOS being a different OS, it still doesn't stand up that well. Windows applications were very capable for a long time of running DOS programs. Windows 95/98 ran on top of a DOS kernel. Earlier versions of Windows used the DOS file system. Every successive version of Windows because less DOS and more like the Windows we know today. They were eliminating DOS piece by piece until XP was released. These things do not suggest an attempt at creating a different OS. It was very clear that Windows was eventually going to completely replace DOS.

They stopped development of Visual Studio 6 and developed Visual Studio .Net. They preserved some old things and added new things. It's the very same pattern. It's exactly the same. It was developed as a successor.

If you have a valid point, then make your point without resorting to these silly word games. Despite all of our fierce disagreements, I do still try to afford you guys a certain level of respect befitting talented developers people such as yourself but when you resort to word games to win an argument, it really tempts me not to take you seriously as a person. These word games are the domain of children.

so how can u say VB6 is old and obsolete when I still use it and very little bugs. and if there a bug, I usually can fix it within the hour. since VB6 IDE is so easy to navigate. so, VB6 is not obsolete, its still working, and if you think VB6 is obsolete

Remember that old QuickBasic program I mentioned? We have one client to this day who vehemently refuses to upgrade to Windows because he thinks his DOS based version is perfect. Do you think we should start writing programs in QuickBasic again and installing DOS on new clients' computers just because one guy thinks it's the best thing ever? Is this your argument? Just because it's easy for you it's objectively better? Are you being serious?

what about C and C++ that are very old languages.

C/C++ compilers are being updated constantly and C/C++ programs can be written using modern IDEs like Visual Studio 2019. VB6 is a combination of the language, it's runtime and the IDE and none of these have been updated for like 20 years.

why not remove them as well?

Also, I never suggested that VB6 be removed. My position is that VB.Net and modern Visual Studio editions are better tools for developing Windows applications than VB6.

Another thing I find interesting is that I seem to be the one that's most looking forward to TwinBasic despite needing it far less than any of you. Finally a promising VB6 compatible development tool is on the horizon and the only one that is truly looking forward to it's success is a VB.Net developer. But yea, continue thinking I want VB6 gone.

[wqweto]

Unasked life advice for all here: It is important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong.

cheers,
</wqw>

[wwolf]

Imagine being able to manage VB6 projects on a modern IDE...

https://www.axtools.com/products-codesmart-vb6.php

with modern language features...

http://www.vbrichclient.com
https://codejock.com/products/suitepro/?2yn6s14z=p1z
http://www.tools4vb.com/home/index.php
https://www.timosoft-software.de/
...

[SearchingDataOnly]

I've already said all I have to say on the topic. I'm not going to rehash all that again. Also I created a thread in chit chat that's 50% poking fun at the topic and 50% serious. You can check that out to see what we actually love about modern Visual Studio versions and all in brings including VB.Net, the .Net Framework and .Net core. Part of the reason I made that thread also is to keep adding to it over time. Despite it's intended slight tongue-in-cheek nature, I will keep adding all the little things I've come to love about .Net and it's eco-system over the years as I remember them or come across things that I've been previously unaware. It should serve as a sort of record that's very specific instead of me just saying it's better.

I read your thread in the chit chat. First of all, it's very appreciated that you use specific code examples and pictures to illustrate your point of view. The content inside is also helpful for some .NET beginners. But what do the examples you and others have posted illustrate? Can it explain that ".NET has a huge advantage over VB6 in developing desktop software"?

The two of us have different understandings of software projects, different understandings of software development efficiency, and different definitions of professional programmers and amateur programmers. In addition, the version of VB6 we use is also different (I'm using VB6-2020). There is no need to continue arguing between us.

I hope you can continue to update your thread. When you need to promote your VB.NET, you only need to post the link of that thread, and let the readers judge by themselves. There is no need to talk about those emotional discourse.

In addition, the way you write VB6 code shocked me.

Edit:
The way to prove that .NET is better than VB6 is actually very simple:
(1) When people here are looking forward to the new VB6-Compiler and new VB6-IDE, someone posted the link of an excellent new VB6-Compiler written in C#/VB.NET or the new VB6-IDE developed in C#/VB.NET
(2) When I was developing Spread, someone posted a link to a better Spread developed in C#/VB.NET
(3) When I was about to try to develop a CodeEditor with VB6, someone posted a link to a high-performance and highly scalable CodeEditor developed in C#/VB.NET

At this time, VB6 developers will judge for themselves whether .NET is better than VB6. Such a link address is better than saying 10,000 words to praise .NET. If the technology that a person with more than 20 or even 30 years of programming experience can talk about is just some syntactic sugar, it will make me feel incredible.

[SomeYguy]

There are valid reasons to complain about the abandonment of VB6. In its heyday, VB6 was much more popular than all other languages combined. A whole industry - i.e. third party components, add-ins, etc. was founded around it.

Many businesses both large and small invested heavily in it with both time and money, as did some individuals. Millions of lines of code were written, some of it for special applications which cannot be converted to .NET.

More software than ever before was being written for Windows. That alone was very good for Microsoft because it virtually guaranteed their Windows customer base.

There were many, many more benefits to be had from VB6 and yet MS walked away from all of it and created the .NET mess instead. They had the world by the tail and they let it go. VB6 should have been upgraded and improved, not abandoned. Oh well, beating a dead horse here I guess.....

[baka]

I responded to that chit-chat thread, and got this answer if .net work without a setup:

.NET exes can work without a setup.

I actually dont have the .NET framework installed on my windows 7 computers.
my work computer is also windows 7, no .NET.
without .NET all the .exe don't work.
any attempt to start a .NET program will fail for me....

a language is not about intellisense and 1-line-functions, but the whole.
- compiling exe sizes
- setup needed?
- back compatibility
- speed
- IDE
- recognition
- stability
- limited

whats good with VB6 is that is complete. its both cons and pros. pros since its done, I can learn it and nobody will change it. cons is that new feature will not be added.

also, if .NET is so good, why theres still no .NET program that I found useful or needed? wheres all the .NET programs?

[techgnome]

if .NET is so good, why theres still no .NET program that I found useful or needed? wheres all the .NET programs?

if VB6 is so good, why there's still no VB6 programs that I found useful or needed? Where all the VB6 programs?

To be fair, and to answer both of those, just because you don't "see" it (and I'm not sure how you would) doesn't mean they don't exist. I DO see them. All the time. But then I'm in the enterprise world. There's a substantial amount of business/enterprise level of applications out there that run on .NET There's also a lot that don't. There's even some I know of that run on VB6... There's some that run both VB6 AND .NET together in one system. I've seen it all. There's a job that I'm considering applying for. It's darn near close to a dream job, combining an interest of mine along with programming... and it's a .NET position. So it's out there, it just doesn't do it in big giant flashy neon signs. But then neither does VB6 does it?

At the end of the day, no one gives two craps, or even a single crap, what something was written in, just that it freakin works. So we can either continue this bickering and pissing match, and comparing the size of our co----mpilers.... or shut up and get back to coding.

Besides, we all know that Rust is going to be King one day....


-tg

[Peter Swinkels]

niya wrote:

"Windows applications were very capable for a long time of running DOS programs. Windows 95/98 ran on top of a DOS kernel. Earlier versions of Windows used the DOS file system. Every successive version of Windows because less DOS and more like the Windows we know today. They were eliminating DOS piece by piece until XP was released. These things do not suggest an attempt at creating a different OS. It was very clear that Windows was eventually going to completely replace DOS."

Those versions of Windows were also capable of crashing a lot and being gaping security holes. Something you do not want in these days where you practically need an active internet connection 100% of the time. You think today's Windows has security issues? I haven't forgotten the days where I needed a third party firewall and virus scanner. Even then I had to adjust a bazillion security settings to reduce the chance of Internet Explorer being hijacked all the time. I also need to reinstall Windows far less often because something broke.

EDIT:
I also appreciate the fact Windows now has separate user profiles and people can't casually log on to mess with my stuff. Yes, you could use a bootdisk or something. If you are really paranoid about that you can use encryption.

[Niya]

I actually dont have the .NET framework installed on my windows 7 computers.
my work computer is also windows 7, no .NET.
without .NET all the .exe don't work.
any attempt to start a .NET program will fail for me....

The .Net Framework 3.5 is installed on Windows 7 machines by default. If you run applications targeting later Framework versions, you need to install these versions. I targeted all my applications to 3.5 for a long time for this very reason. But I can see where you can run into problems. Hey it's not 100% perfect but neither is VB6. I get a tonne of problems like that with VB6 applications, more so than I get with .Net applications.

These points cancel each other out because for every claim you can make about your troubles running .Net applications, I can make an equal amount towards my share of problems with VB6 applications.

a language is not about intellisense and 1-line-functions, but the whole.
- compiling exe sizes
- setup needed?
- back compatibility
- speed
- IDE
- recognition
- stability
- limited

You're playing word games again. You're reading off a list because it sounds impressive and official but they aren't actually conveying any meaning because they mostly lack context. Compile sizes? Even the SD card in my phone is 16 GB. Speed? Are you writing software to run high precision machines in automated factories?

These word games man.

[wes4dbt]

We had a massively successful DOS based POS system written in QuickBasic in the early 90s. Windows eventually killed DOS and the vast differences between the two operating systems eventually forced a rewrite to be created. The DOS version was actually maintained well up until VB6 was created which is what the new program was written in. I have a plan to rewrite it yet again using the latest Visual Studio (haven't decided whether I'm going to to it in VB.Net or C#/.Net Framework or .Net Core ) within the next 2 years. I'm also toying with the idea(nothing too specific yet) about doing some kind of web-based version or at least complementary stuff that runs online. 20 years after that, if it's still popular and in demand, it will be rewritten again in whatever is the latest thing 20 years from now.

The point I'm making is that if you're not prepared to do what is necessary to keep up as old technology becomes obsolete and replaced by new tech, then you're in the wrong business. If the world operated by your principles, we'd all still be using DOS.

And on the topic of DOS and old tech, you don't think it as painful to move from DOS to Windows? I loved DOS. I thought it was the best OS ever. I hated Windows in the early days. It was big and clunky and clumsy to use. DOS was sleek, fast and streamlined. I thought Windows would just be a curiosity that would have faded back into obscurity once the novelty wore off. But guess what, that didn't happen and I learned to love Windows and I can certainly see the wisdom in leaving DOS behind now. The IT industry has always been like this. Nothing is meant to last forever. Even Windows itself will be obsolete one day. Are you prepared for that day? I am. I will hate it but I will do what is necessary if something eventually comes along and knock Windows into the dusts of history.

For someone so intelligent and talented you really are quite irrational sometimes.

When I read that response from Schmidt may first thought was what a foolish expectation. Then my thoughts were just like yours. The DOS to Windows transition, I also thought Windows was a novelty, just way to slow. Glad you posted first, saved me a lot of typing. lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

There are valid reasons to complain about the abandonment of VB6. In its heyday, VB6 was much more popular than all other languages combined.

I think that was largely because of what it was compared to. None of the most popular languages today existed at the time, so VB6 was competing against some pretty weak alternatives. Not weak in performance, but weak in usability.

[Peter Swinkels]

@wes4dbt: the first two versions of Windows were useless novelties and Windows 3.0 was buggy and unstable. Win 3.1x was decent for its time.

[wes4dbt]

@wes4dbt: the first two versions of Windows were useless novelties and Windows 3.0 was buggy and unstable. Win 3.1x was decent for its time.

It's not that I thought Windows was crap, it was pretty cool. My problem was that Windows and GUI programs were painfully slow. Once ram became cheaper and the Pentium chip because available then Windows became the preferred option in business.

[Peter Swinkels]

@wes4dbt: okay, actually 3.11 ran fine on my 80386 SX 25mhz with 4mb of ram. It was 9x that required a Pentium or at least a decent 486 to run decently.

[baka]

the problem is that the mods will not remove you, they let u do whatever u want, you ruins it for the VB6 community,
with you incompetence of analysis of different perspectives, you actually make VB6 forum a worse place to be.
you are giving nothing that we dont already know. you think we are unaware of .NET and what it can do?
but its not about that, I know about many languages but Im still using VB6 for a reason, and thats the purpose WHY I'm here.
to help someone decide, if VB6 is good enough or not. well for someone that have worked with VB6 for a long time I can actually give that advice. but what do we have here? an anti-VB6, .NET lover boy that try to manipulate and act arrogant and bashing the VB6 community. why are you here again? are there not enough threads in the .NET section so that u need to be here and infect this place?

have u even create a project without any activex? have you worked with directx/direct2d/directsound?
have u created a VB6 project which your own graphical buttons, your own controlbox, menu's without using the default one?
how much do you really know about VB6? what do you really know about my applications and what they can do?
if you want to talk and everybody should listen, well, u also need to show your skills. and if I listen to u, I would expect skills that are above myself, theres plenty in here that I would listen to, even if I dont agree I will always respect what they say. why? because they know a lot, they are experts. what about you? what have you contributed with? why should I listen to someone like you instead of Olaf?

[wes4dbt]

@wes4dbt: okay, actually 3.11 ran fine on my 80386 SX 25mhz with 4mb of ram. It was 9x that required a Pentium or at least a decent 486 to run decently.

I had forgot all about the 486. lol

It was probably @ then that our little software house realized GUI was the future. It sucked, I had a lot of years invested in DOS languages. But we had businesses running our programs in a DOS shell for many years.

[SomeYguy]

.....Being a die hard VB6 fan we started the project in VB6 and use PhotoDemon as a base but we soon started running into walls like we could not add Mask Layers functionality to it and it was proving to be very slow in processing large images captured from digital cameras as high MP, etc.

Many years ago, I did mask layering in VB6 and it worked very well. As I recall it used a collection of 32-bit transparent DIB sections along with drawing etc using GDI+ paths and some pixel banging. No problem.

Regarding fast processing of large images, efficient code in any language should be speedy once compiled to native code. I've never had any significant speed problems performing raster operations on large images when using optimized code along with API calls as needed.

But I do see your point, and you had to find the best solution. I likely would have done same if I couldn't do it in VB6.

[SomeYguy]

You guys can't help spreading these lies can you...

I actually think you are trolling now to be honest.

Calm down. Its just some people's opinion.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There are some good things in this thread. There may even be some original things in this thread. But some folks are starting to take it way too seriously, which is where these things tend to go. I've already removed a few posts, and could remove more, but the OP asked one question, hasn't come back, we've wandered all over the place (how did we get talking about the 386 chip?), lost the topic, and there isn't much fresh.

Therefore, I felt that it's time for this iteration of the soap opera to come to an end.