Well, you are missing a lot of features in the free version, as opposed to Professional. Other than that, we don't support piracy.
Printable View
Well, you are missing a lot of features in the free version, as opposed to Professional. Other than that, we don't support piracy.
Theres the odd junior here that may say your wrong, but the seniors here would agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bornish
I think that it does not hurt to know more than one language, however I know some languages that i doubt anyone else here knows about, "Spss Quantum" and "In2form" .. These are market research related languages, that i spent 5 years studing, certified and all.. how ever very little use today, as i'm no longer in the market research sector..
But it does not hurt..
Okay I am back you .net lovers. I had to redo gremlinsa's code since the results were inconclusive due to lack of translating the code from vb6 to vb.net which in the result have made a new revision that drew lines and not a clef at all. How could this be? I don't know, but I assure you I had to fix his mistakes. Now we have a very well qualified app that looks like the vb6 version, but written in the .net. Now I am sure you know I don't code in the .net, but I got my hands dirty :(..... Well from the results of my conversion vb6 wins by a large margin. I mean so large it is not funny. vb6 is like 1000x faster.
If I did code this wrong, which I don't think I have, feel free to correct it............ The project is attached for vb.net
It has the clef picture just like the vb6 version. Too bad gremlinsa couldn't transfer the picture over.
You keep thinking that. Have you heard of brute force? I suppose the .net doesn't teach you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by GermlinSa
You still didn't answer my question. You told me where it is located, but you failed to answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
Ok here I will comment on your "comparison"...Quote:
Originally Posted by GremlinSa
Task1: was a failed attempt has it was all done at runtime. So it is actually a lie. You should time the initial run of the exe and not after it has done it's work
Task2: Actually this is probably faster than Task1, but since Task1 does it at runtime.... it as invisible lag in the execution start up, so you can't see the delay
Task3: Finally after a few days you got it right, but the TEST WAS NOT DONE RIGHT!
LOOK AT MY VB.NET CONVERSION. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE SPEED OF IT........... MAKE IT FASTER IF YOU CAN!!!
If I have overstated stuff or offended people, I do not mean to hurt you, but I do like to express myself ;)
Joeman, when you are interviewing for that .Net job, I suggest you take your new .Net app with you and mention that VB6 is 1000x faster. You're sure to land the job.
You didn't even look at it, but I may just do that lol
I know arjay is about to reply
I'm busy writing a C# XmlSerialization sample for another post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
Wow You realy do know how to dig yourself into a deep hole.... The Code i wrote to do the first task is on this post (Note File updated July 9th)Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
Stick to VB6, you write .NET apps like crap... my application written back then kicks you app's A$$...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
.NET (Mine) = 234ms
.NET (Joeman) = 4992ms ...
I guess if your going to bash .NET your Going to Go out of your Way to use the slowest methods you can find...
Hmmm More personal Bashing... I guess the only way to show you, I DID ASK FOR THE IMAGE AND DOWNLOADED IT ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
This is a threat against Codeguru.... Against the AUP!!!!! ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
No one else complained about the comparison, some did get different results, however the results i posted has been accepted as close to acctual (In relation to graphics) ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
I DID, Long time ago already ... Look here on this post (Same link as above, just in case you did not see it)Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
That was not expressing yourself....Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
Yes it is and your project forgot to add 100 to the textbox... silly. Also your declare for your gettickcount is wrong. How did it even output right with it trying to return as long? Well, it is suppose to be integer. What were you thinking. Your app is flawed.
Your app takes 1937 ms while the vb6 takes 317ms. You lied! Way to go to trick people. EDIT: btw that is at full screen 1280 * 1024
The only reason people agreed with your results and tests is because they didn't look at them! I had to. Thanks for trying to cover up the .net slow factor with lies
I fixed your bug gremlin and uploaded it. I also uploaded the vb6 version with the vb.net version so everyone can have access to both at the same time.
and for me writing my version in the .net and finding the slowest method is a lie. I didn't do research. I typed in picturebox1. and the intellengise brought up the list of functions and that is the first one I saw. If it is that slow, I don't know why they would even put it in the .net for.
And I suppose yours is not ?????Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
I posted the app, with out making any claim that it is the fastest method or implimentation.. Yes i might not have declared the Gettickcount 100% correctly, but then neither did you... LOOK UP "Pinvoke" for the correct API Delacrations..
As for using Long instead of Integer... Long is a '64Bit Int' data type and Integer is a '32Bit Int' datatype.. so where will it 'loose' bits....
Yes My little test app is flawed.. But it was an initial test..
As for the FLAW of adding in the "100" in the text box... IF you looked at the screen shots posted.. they all showed the same number in the textbox.. 'PROOF' that the test was run with the same number of test loops.. For every test that i ran i posted screen shots showing the Test Forms size, as the test results are 'FLAWED' if the forms are not of identical size....
Show me a screen shot of the two forms next to each other, Showing the times...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
I can easily get the VB6 code to work on a form thats 200 * 200 pixels, and the .NET code to work on a form that 400 * 400 pixels and say that the .NET took longer, Well sure, it's doing 4 times the work...
What I've done, is Posted test results, run on my Development system, with Screen shots of relevant details, and offered my opinion on the results, and others have looked at the Results that i've posted, AND Because I POST FULL Results, with screen shots, no one else has seen reason to doubt the results..
You've made hundreds of claims here, however you have not posted one shred of proof...
The only lies i see here are the ones that you post...
I honestly think it's better you go back to the sandbox and leave this to the Pro's...
Dude I will post results! and your form is at that small and getting around 290ms?? the vb6 will do that at 20 ms easily
Well there you go "I didn't do research." is all we needed to hear...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeman
Go and do the research, until then stop spamming this thread..
Here are the 2 done at fullscreen. 1280 x 1024
Same size
They are attached. I had to compress the quality of them, but that was to be expected
Also the .net didn't warn me that I was doing anything wrong with using drawtobitmap. It sounded like a good ideal
Here is your vb.net version and wizbang vb6 version