VC++ .net 2003.....

**bennyandthejets** · 07-09-2003

My mum has Windows 95. She has had it for a number of years and has never needed anything more. She uses it for all work purposes, as well as internet browsing, web site creation, etc. Many people see no point in paying more money when what they have works fine.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

**SMurf** · 07-09-2003

Originally posted by bennyandthejets
Many people see no point in paying more money when what they have works fine.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

How come MS is still managing to make a profit on Office, then? Or is it always "broke"?

**bennyandthejets** · 07-09-2003

I stand corrected.

I can't wait till the day they release a perfect Office.

ERROR(3): oxymoron detected "perfect Office", insanity suspected.

**Cat** · 07-09-2003

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
iwod, money is really the only issue as far as I'm concerned. But I wouldn't be using .NET features. I would continue using Win32 API. So by all means, give me a free copy . Smurf, that's a valid point. I forgot about that. isn't it NT only? And Cat, most companies distribute their libraries as binaries. It's a select few who are into this whole open source thing. Out here in the real world they try to make money. There is less room for ideals.

Template libraries can't be distributed as binaries, and many of the most useful libraries are template libraries. Binary libraries are of course platform dependant, not compiler dependant.

It's also true that the newest compilers (like the newest everything from Microsoft) won't install on 95. Win95 is on its way out the door, along with 98 and Me. They were flawed from their conception, and each further incarnation only propagated the poor design choices of the original. There's only so long people can be expected to continue to write code for legacy systems. Once the NT line of systems is the only one in popular use, programming will be easier for everyone.

And I know that people still use legacy systems. I still have a machine running Dos 6.0 and MS Windows for Workgroups 3.11, but I don't complain that nobody writes software for it.

And as for cost, if you always have the most up-to-date version, MS makes it very cheap to upgrade. Upgrading to .NET 2003 from .NET 2002 is $30 until the end of August. Had you upgraded from 6.0 to .NET early on, you could have upgraded very cheaply indeed.

**FillYourBrain** · 07-09-2003

Cat, most libraries are done with the intention of being used in multiple languages. Templates are something very unique to C++ (other languages? don't know) I can see you are partial to having the code but lets face it, most companies don't want you to have their code. Quite frankly, I wouldn't either.

**FillYourBrain** · 07-09-2003

forget it. I don't wish to argue about something so trivial. The proof is in the number of people who feel the need to upgrade. I for one do not. It is totally unnecessary to accomplishing the job of development on 32 bit windows system.

**Cat** · 07-09-2003

Very little is actually NECESSARY for developing Win32 applications. The C++ language itself is not needed for that task, nor is the STL, or many other features, yet C++ is a highly useful tool, as is the STL, and as is Boost and others. Yes, lots of people program for Win32 without Boost, or without using the STL, or without using C++ at all. It doesn't mean they're worthless tools because they aren't vitally important.

There also isn't any kind of competition between binary libraries and template libraries -- they provide two totally different kinds of benefits; each has their niche and their use. Neither one is a replacement for the other. To think that either is "better" is a flawed way of thinking, there is no comparison, it would be like comparing a hammer and a screwdriver. Which one is "better" really boils down to whether you're trying to pound a nail or drive a screw.

I personally prefer a compiler that will actually compile ANSI-C++ code. I prefer a compiler that will let me use useful tools like Boost and Blitz++. And the tangible benefits of upgrading early, weighed against a trivial cost (c'mon, I can go without pizza twice and save up $30) make upgrading immediately seem like a no-brainer. I still have the option to use the same tools that were available before, and I gain by having a lot more options available to me.

Having more options available to you can only help you as a programmer. I remember that it took me a while to get onboard this whole "STL" thing; having been introduced to the language in 1991, I didn't see the need -- I'd gotten along fine for years without it. And, of course, there was no "need" for the STL; everything that can be done with it can be done without it. And yet I think it is the singularly most useful improvement to the C++ language that will ever be done. Code becomes more elegant, exception-safe, and development time decreases by a large amount. It doesn't make new things possible; it makes tasks that were already possible easier, safer, and more efficient.

Libraries like Boost make life even easier, and as most of Boost will most likely eventually be absorbed into ANSI-C++, this time I'll learn its uses earlier and not later. Heck, even if you only use the smart pointer features, Boost provides huge benefits to the programmer.

So, if you think about the pros and cons:

Pros:
* Enhanced ANSI-C++ compliance
* More tools and techniques become usable
* Existing code will still work
* Offers an opportunity to learn and grow as a programmer as the language (and compiler compliance) grows
* Learning more about all the tools ANSI-C++ provides to the programmer will significantly improve your chances of being hired to a programming job.
* Most major corporations upgrade nearly immediately to new platforms, so familiarity with the current products again improves hireability.

Cons:
* Usually costs about $30-$50 to upgrade

**unanimous** · 07-10-2003

The only reason I found to upgrade to Visual Studio.NET 2002 was because other people I shared code with upgraded and sometime there would be incompatabilites between the code. I also upgraded so I could get Visual C#.NET since SharpDevelop was having problems on my machine. I assume that the same thing will happne with Visual Studio.NET 2003 but for $30 its not such a bad upgrade.

**ZakkWylde969** · 07-11-2003

Originally posted by Speedy5
You can still write code for Win95 just that you can't write managed code for it. But anyways, whoever still has Win95 doesn't deserve to live.

I resent that in the fact that my personal computer uses Win95 (my family one is XP). I like it because you can "hack" into it and change many features such as the startup/shut down sounds and graphics making it a little more homey. And I like the style of it.

**Dohojar** · 07-11-2003

I like it because you can "hack" into it and change many features such as the startup/shut down sounds and graphics making it a little more homey. And I like the style of it.

You can do all that and more with xp you just have to do some digging around to find out how to. Windows95 was the biggest piece of crap that ever came out of microsoft and every copy of it should be distroyed. I am running on an amd processor and windows95 won't even let me install it on my machine because I am not running an intell processor. Speedy5 is totally right(well maybe they do deserve to live but window 95 users need to wake up and smell the coffee)

**ZakkWylde969** · 07-11-2003

Where are the files for XP? I searched for them but no luck finding them. I did a search for every picture type of file on my computer and no show.

**Dohojar** · 07-11-2003

well for starters, you can switch to windows classic mode. you can do that in the control panel. As for how to change every thing else I forget how to do it now cause I am running windows 98(lost my XP cd ) but I know that I had changed all the same things that you are wanting to do. I didn't like the xp look either when I first was running it so I made a serious effort in changing it back to the way I had it before. If I remember or find my disk again I will let you know how to do the changes.

**ZakkWylde969** · 07-11-2003

I already have my XP in classic mode.

**Cat** · 07-11-2003

You can modify the startup screen under Win2K, I believe it is the same under XP. In Win2K, you needed to use a resource editor to edit one of the system executables and replace an embedded bitmap. I used to have a pretty anime startup in 2K.

95/98/Me are terrible operating systems. They are convoluted hybrids of 16 bit and 32 bit systems; in their quest for backwards compatibility, the team who made 95 exhibited no foresight at all. I think that of all the design choices they had to make, they consistently made the worst possible ones at each turn.

**stumon** · 07-12-2003

lol, I hear everyone saying, how expensive .Net is. I love the fact that im in college and we have the Microsoft Academic Alliance. Didn't pay a penny for .Net, or XP. Enough bragging. I think that .Net is a great tool, if you have the opportunity to switch, do it.