#include <gdiPlus.h> problem with Code::Blocks

This is a discussion on #include <gdiPlus.h> problem with Code::Blocks within the Windows Programming forums, part of the Platform Specific Boards category; Originally Posted by Elysia A lot of businesses don't upgrade because it costs too much... the end. I wonder why ...

  1. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    A lot of businesses don't upgrade because it costs too much... the end.
    I wonder why people are moving to Win7 if all it does is give more eye candy...
    I don't have the link handy but something like 80% of Windows 7 sales volume is when it's included with new computers.
    People are *not* dumping XP left right and center, because windows 7 is NOT better.

    I do a lot of home theatre HTPC type work and, with decent audio components such as those from Amcron or MacIntosh the difference in both sound and video quality between XP and Windows 7 is obvious... Also on lower end processors typical of HTPC setups (Atom chips are common) win7 will drop frames, burble and even lock up on stuff XP plays without any issues at all.

    Frankly... if I could get proper SATA and High Def Audio crivers for Windows 2000... that's where my HTPC systems would be.

    For the most part XP remains the operating system of choice for audiophile applications almost world wide... particularly with external THX quality DACs and Audio over HDMI setups. The reason for this is actually quite simple... Delayed Procedure Call Latency (DPCLat) on Win7 runs 200 to 400 microseconds where on XP it's usually under 20... and yes a 10 to 1 ratio is a difference you can actually HEAR on an audiophile quality DAC. Win7 sounds harsh, XP is more natural sounding.

    The same is also true with a couple of electronics suppliers I did inventory systems for. They added a new computer (AMD X2 3ghz, Win7) beside their 5 existing XP setups (AMD X2, 2.4ghz) and almost always the XP systems can finish a part inquiry before the new machine... in fact, it's so apparent you don't even need benchmarks to find it... the XP machines run circles around the Win7 box. They asked me to install XP...

    Newer isn't always better... in recent years, "newer" usually means "bigger pile of crap".

    Were Microsoft to get their (stuff) together, they would strip out all the crap --dvd burners, animated sillyness, etc. etc.-- that most people don't use and come out with a "no nonsense" version of windows stripped right down to the barest essentials... THAT I would go for.


    The firewall isn't the only thing in terms of security in an operating system, you know? When companies upgrade operating system because of security, it isn't to get a better "built-in" firewall.
    AND... most of the time it isn't because there's an actual problem one can put a finger on... I have systems out there that have been running behind hardware routers with Windows firewalls defeated, no virus checking, half their services shut down and networking wide open for YEARS without a single problem. Turn on Automatic Updates and I spend the next week running around trying to fix the unholly mess Microsoft has caused me.

    Simple, rule... old platitude... if it ain't broke, don't fix it... Microsoft needs to learn that.

    I am constantly amazed at the glaring lack of common sense I see so often in this industry...
    Last edited by CommonTater; 10-22-2011 at 06:39 AM.

  2. #17
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,659
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonTater View Post
    I don't have the link handy but something like 80% of Windows 7 sales volume is when it's included with new computers.
    People are *not* dumping XP left right and center, because windows 7 is NOT better.
    This argument does not hold.
    Vista was shipped on all new computers sold, too. Yet, it never surpassed XP in terms of market share.

    ...snip...
    Have you made sure the drivers are properly written for 7? Have you made sure there is no other "crap" interfering? Have you made sure the test is ... I don't know, comparable?
    If yes, I'll believe you. Unfortunately Microsoft built lots of new foundation work with Vista, some perhaps not all that good.
    And now they have to work with that.

    Were Microsoft to get their (stuff) together, they would strip out all the crap --dvd burners, animated sillyness, etc. etc.-- that most people don't use and come out with a "no nonsense" version of windows stripped right down to the barest essentials... THAT I would go for.
    But there already is one such version -- DOS! Why don't you use it?

    AND... most of the time it isn't because there's an actual problem one can put a finger on... I have systems out there that have been running behind hardware routers with Windows firewalls defeated, no virus checking, half their services shut down and networking wide open for YEARS without a single problem. Turn on Automatic Updates and I spend the next week running around trying to fix the unholly mess Microsoft has caused me.
    You are not a big company like, say, Sony.
    You are not constantly under attack by big, savvy hackers.
    Although I do agree about automatic updates screwing up more than fixing.

    Simple, rule... old platitude... if it ain't broke, don't fix it... Microsoft needs to learn that.
    You need to learn that if we adhere to that rule, we'd be stuck with DOS.

    I am constantly amazed at the glaring lack of common sense I see so often in this industry...
    Sometimes I am amazed on how much common sense you lack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Sometimes I am amazed on how much common sense you lack.
    And back to my ignore file you go....

    And this time, it's perminent. I'm tired of your BS and insults.

  4. #19
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,659
    Heh. We'll see how long that lasts.
    I'm just going to add a little FYI, even though you won't notice it... I will never put you on ignore. No matter what you say or do. Ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Code::Blocks run problem
    By Coga1900 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-20-2011, 03:49 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-08-2011, 07:11 AM
  3. compilation problem........code::blocks...
    By Souradeep in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 02:04 AM
  4. Code Blocks compiling problem
    By Lehsyrus in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-13-2010, 02:28 PM
  5. Code::Blocks problem
    By eaane74 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 07:24 PM

Tags for this Thread


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21