Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
To download the ISO, you need to install the ActiveX download mgr first.
I took the time to install Borland C++ and check it out. I went to Borland's site and did a search for 'Turbo C++' and it redirected me to an install.
I wasn't too impressed during the install process, since it failed and told me I needed to install Visual J# .Net v1.1 Redist package first.
Okay, I do that and then reinstall and when I'm done it shows up as "Borland Developer Suite 2006".
My first impression was that it hasn't changed much since I quit using Turbo C++ back in 1995.
The forms designer looks like VB, no intellisense.
I created a new SDI project and console project, and it looks like something that I could create with Visual Studio 4.2.
Not impressed.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
So, Does it sounds.. MS VC++ is the one and only one best compiler with IDE and debugger available today? :p
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
For all its shortcomings in so many other software areas, Microsoft has produced a first-rate development suite and oddly enough (as far as I know) they did it all internally and didn't just buyout/re-badge someone else's hard-work as they've done with so many other products.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigB
So, Does it sounds.. MS VC++ is the one and only one best compiler with IDE and debugger available today? :p
For Windows, true. But they wrote Windows after all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hoxsiew
For all its shortcomings in so many other software areas, Microsoft has produced a first-rate development suite and oddly enough (as far as I know) they did it all internally and didn't just buyout/re-badge someone else's hard-work as they've done with so many other products.
Well, they have been developing it for a long time. I remember using the compiler manually from the command line. Turbo C for Windows (1990) got MS to come out with Visual C 1.0. Didn't work very well, so they quickly came out with VC++ 1.5. (1.52 was the last DOS based). Simultaneously they came out with 2.0 which was Win32 and required NT 3.0 to operate. Anyway, 1.5 was the first usable Visual C++ implementation (also MS lowered the price from $4500 to about $300). It used the Microsoft Word keys in the GUI and was fairly easy to use. It pretty much stole most of the market share back from Turbo C for Windows. While Borland is still around, it has never recovered the market share that it lost in 1991.
MS is getting dumb again in that it raised the price back to around $1000 (unless you are a student). Guess they feel secure in their share of the market.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Thanks egawtry, that was something interesting history of the compiler :)
Quote:
MS is getting dumb again in that it raised the price back to around $1000 (unless you are a student). Guess they feel secure in their share of the market.
wah! $1000 for MS VC++ ?:eek: oops.. Its double the price of Windows7! and, if i'm gonna purchase VC.. i'll surely get my pant's torn:D
How can Microsoft be this much greedy for money? gates had earned enough, and he still need bucks for a bath?:mad:
@egawtry
Excuse me for my off question.. i had a doubt.., since you've some knowledge of past, i think i'd ask you.. is Windows a copy of some other operating system? did they copied anything from other people or did they wrote that from scratch?
Did any other people copied from Microsoft Windows? i mean, linux or unix or any other?
Why the Open Source people hates Microsoft the most? As Microsoft is not the only company who sells their product for price... why Opensource is not hating Adobe, Autodesk and all? I have seen Opensource buddies crying at Windows and Microsoft like Billgates had stolen their underwears.. :D
i heard that Apple Jobs stoled some concepts from Windows like multitasking, taskbar and all.. and Apple Jobs stoled GUI from Xerox and all..
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
whhhhaaaa ???? $1,000 ?????
FORGET IT.
I'll stick with Turbo C++ for now. It might not be as good, but for a guy like me it's hard to justify $1,000 over FREE.
I still want to try MVS, but I can't get it to install. : (
thanks for all the insight.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
I just clicked BUY NOW on microsofts site to see what the price is.
$ 5,469.00 !!!!!!!!
are they OUT OF THEIR FREAKIN' MINDS ?????????
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
I'll stick with Turbo C++ for now. It might not be as good, but for a guy like me it's hard to justify $1,000 over FREE.
Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition is free... :D
I'm on it... :p
Turbo Crap++ sucks:sick: its a weird compiler:thumbd:
I feel VC the best. its easy, advanced and cool :)
Quote:
I just clicked BUY NOW on microsofts site to see what the price is.
$ 5,469.00 !!!!!!!!
are they OUT OF THEIR FREAKIN' MINDS ?????????
You might have checked the price of entire Visual Studio 2008 Suite.... i think VC++ individually might have $1000 bucks:confused:
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigB
...is Windows a copy of some other operating system? did they copied anything from other people or did they wrote that from scratch?
i heard that Apple Jobs stoled some concepts from Windows like multitasking, taskbar and all.. and Apple Jobs stoled GUI from Xerox and all..
Well, it is very complex. The original GUI concept was designed back in the late 60s by Xerox. From there it was a involuntary collabrative effort (everyone stole from everyone else). I personally came into the picture in the late 70s. There was text based windowing, but no mouse or light pen on the average home computer or UNIX terminal. When the power of the original PC arrived, the game developers demonstrated that graphical windowing was possible. X-Windows was around for big mainframe machines with very expensive graphics terminals (Sun stations - 198x). Apple created the Lisa (1984), which prompted MS to create Windows 1.x (1986). Both had interfaces mostly stolen from X-Windows. Apple had the taskbar stolen from the original Xerox interface. I only saw copies of it running, but never actually used it myself. The Lisa was a bomb, so Apple futzed for a few years and came out with the original Mac while MS came out with Windows 2.0 (1988). Also around was the Amiga, a multitasking computer about 10 years ahead of its time (it could do everything a Windows Multimedia machine from the late 90s could do). About that time the IBM/MS wars were taking off, so IBM came out with OS/2 which had the first real multitasking on a PC.
Take the driver ideas and multithreading from OS/2, combine with Windows 2.0/386, and you get Windows 3.0. After fixing the network stuff, then you get Windows 3.1x. Add in the taskbar from the Mac and Amiga, and you get Windows 95. WinNT 3.0 (I heard a rumor MS bought it from someone) was usable with WinNT 3.5 in 1995.
About this time (early 90s) Linux was adapted from Minux by Linus Torvolds. Full UNIX for the PC which allowed X-Windows on a PC. Since then the core X-Windows hasn't really changed, but the layers on top of it have improved to the point where they are actually usable. Mostly borrowing ideas from Macs and Windows.
=========================
OpenSource is an ideal that sounds great philosophically, but is really, really dumb business. To release Open Source code, you have to assume that you have more resources than anyone else out there, so you can maintain it better. Essentially what it does is give away all your trade secrets. Since you cannot copyright a method like a jpeg decoder or command line parser, you are just giving your competition a solution that they then don't have to pay programmers to figure out.
That is why OpenSource hates MS. MS does not give away its core code, so they have to do it themselves. Also, they have the basic Ideal that everyone should share everything and, of course, keeping code secret violates that Ideal.
Also, MS bashing is almost considered a sport. While I enjoy a MS joke as much as the next guy, I do think that it is mostly undeserved. The anti-MS lawsuits here and in Europe are a good example. MS did nothing, but got royally bashed. Especially with the ignorant courts in Europe who thought that IE was causing a monopoly.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
egawtry
WinNT 3.0 (I heard a rumor MS bought it from someone) was usable with WinNT 3.5 in 1995.
My understanding is that NT was designed from the ground up by David Cutler and his team at Microsoft.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arjay
My understanding is that NT was designed from the ground up by
David Cutler and his team at Microsoft.
Could be. It was just a rumor. I know that I had to custom write software for it because so much was missing from the API. I heard that there was a big argument about NT3 at MS, that the designers wanted to go one direction and they were being told to go another; a big corporate shoe came down and forced them to conform to the Win32 API used by Win95 thus creating NT 3.5 and then NT 3.51. That is why NT POSIX died.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
I worked in that group from just before the release of NT3.51 to just before XP shipped and hadn't heard anything about that. I can tell you, although the function signatures of NT may be similar to Win95, the internal code is far different.
As far as making the api set match on both operating systems, it was a good business decision. Remember at that time, it was difficult to get folks to write 32 bit programs. There was a Win32s translation layer that was suppose to allow Win32s app to run on a 16-bit OS so that developers could get an early start. Unfortunately, this didn't work too well because not many developers took advantage and later on it caused confusion because folks kept trying to write Win32s apps even years later. A big challenge of NT systems were trying to get applications to run on it. Back then, NT was the unpopular step child as compared to Win95. All the NT folks knew it was superior, but the public didn't know it yet.
The issues with the applications running on NT was that Win95 was way more laxed at what it would let run on the api level. If someone had got some gdi calls messed up, often times Win95 would let you do it; whereas NT would throw an error. Microsoft was in constant communication with 3rd party app developers to try to get them to fix their code. It was a struggle, because the 3rd party devs would say, "but it ran on Win95...". Eventually, MS just added a shim layer that would identify the apps and correctly fix up the bad api calls.
Even though the Win32 api set matched on both platforms, it was difficult to get folks to transition from Win9x to NT based systems. I believe MS had hoped to do that by Win2000, but it didn't really start until XP. A good part of this is because MS just had to wait until some of the older applications died off. Earlier Win9x and NT systems supported running 16-bit legacy applications; however, Win95 supported running most every 16-bit app including those that directly accessed the hardware (like video card access in games). NT didn't allow app's direct hardware access and Dave Cutler & Co. wasn't going to compromise and allow app's direct hardware access (for good reason). As time went on, access on various levels became locked down even more as security became more on everyone's radar. While security was always important in NT from its inception, it became even more so.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arjay
I worked in that group from just before the release of NT3.51 to just before XP shipped and hadn't heard anything about that. I can tell you that, although the function signatures of NT may be similar to Win95, the internal code is far different.
Like I said, you probably know better. I am just going by what was discussed on forums/newsgroups at the time.
Of course the internal code is different, what I was referring to was the extra control libraries that made NT 3.51 actually able to run Win95 software where it couldn't before. I sure hope MS wasn't dumb enough to completely rewrite those controls (ListView, ToolBarCtrl, etc) !
I remember when MS finally came out with NT4. There was excitement! The Explorer Shell commands would now work on Windows NT! :-)
As for the security, I fought that a bit. I had a major application that in Windows 2.0/286 wrote to a second monitor by accessing B800. Windows 3 had a back door which still allowed this. I liked NT because the Networking was fixed and it multitasked better. It took a lot of work to get my second monitor runing again though. I eventually had to use a third party driver to do the trick.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
egawtry
Of course the internal code is different, what I was referring to was the extra control libraries that made NT 3.51 actually able to run Win95 software where it couldn't before. I sure hope MS wasn't dumb enough to completely rewrite those controls (ListView, ToolBarCtrl, etc) !
I remember when MS finally came out with NT4. There was excitement! The Explorer Shell commands would now work on Windows NT! :-)
Actually much of the existing Win9x shell code had to be rewritten for NT4. It wasn't being 'dumb', it was out of necessity. Win9x was essentially a 16-bit OS with a 32 bit layer on top. Much of the shell code written for it wasn't going to work or was robust enough to work on NT4, so it was rewritten.
Re: Visual C++ vs. All other Environments ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arjay
Actually much of the existing Win9x shell code had to be rewritten for NT4. It wasn't being 'dumb', it was out of necessity. Win9x was essentially a 16-bit OS with a 32 bit layer on top. Much of the shell code written for it wasn't going to work or was robust enough to work on NT4, so it was rewritten.
And thus was born the infamous "rootbeer" commands.
