Alternatives
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Schmidt on 13 Jan 2009 11:13 "mayayana" <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:OtX$bAZdJHA.1328(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > It used to be that I would strongly encourage people to > stick with Win98. I can't *recommend* XP to anyone. If that's the choice - Win98 or XP, then I can only "recommend" the latter, no question about that. > On the other hand, at this point it takes expertise to run > Win98, given the increasing lack of support in both > hardware and software. Yep, you just named it. If the speed and low resource-usage is your main-concern, then buy yourself a copy of XP-Home to save some money, (these are the same binaries as XP-Pro) and then (before your install) build yourself a new CD-image from the original XP- CD with the use of: http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html This way you will end up with a stripped down-XP- SP3-version which supports the new hardware-drivers and software-versions, but runs as fast (if not faster) as your Win98-install (and yes, you can decide in nLite, if you want to include the IE or the MediaPlayer for example - or not - same thing with most of the XP- services as e.g. AutoUpdates etc.) I have it running that way on e.g. an embedded PC with only 128MB Ram on a 512MB!-FlashDisc (with only 3 necessary service-entries in TaskManager) - and the startup-time is really good, as well as the overall system- performance, no comparison with a "full XP-install", just try it out. I've also updated my old 500MHz PIII-Notebook (384MB-Ram) from Win98 to an nLite prepared XP-install - and this was running definitely faster than before with the Win98-install + much greater process- stability (no reboot after process-crashes as in Win98), faster MemAllocs on App-Startup due to the greatly improved Heap-Management in XP, etc. pp... Olaf
From: mayayana on 13 Jan 2009 11:49 > build yourself a new CD-image from the original XP- > CD with the use of: http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html > I've seen that. It looks like a good idea, though I haven't tried it. But that's certainly not something that one can recommend to a non-techy person, any more than one can recommend hunting down a Win98 compatible motherboard. And it still doesn't cure some of the biggest XP drawbacks. A few that come to mind: 1) Product activation. I don't accept any of the various arguments for going along with that. Period. 2) Online security issues. RPC simply cannot be turned off on XP. One can turn off DCOM and many of the other networking functions that shouldn't be installed in the first place (Messenger, Alerter, etc.) but the unfortunate fact remains that XP is designed as a networked system. 3) Disk wear: I turn off indexing. I remove PCHealth, thereby disabling Windows File Protection. I turn off System Restore. I disable the vast majority of XP services. Yet if I leave the machine sitting it will still thrash every couple of minutes. And it's not just a little bit of disk access. It's extensive, as though I were starting OpenOffice or installing software. 4) Spyware. With nearly all services turned off, with WU deactivated, with Windows Media Player deleted, have I turned off all MS spyware? It's hard to know. There was a controversy awhile back when Windows Update turned out to be updating itself, even when shut off. That meant that something was still calling home. And I'm guessing it's more than just one something. 5) General difficulty: Unnecessary restrictions and warnings... A tendency to slow down over time... Absurdly complex folder structures. A system of "users" and permissions that are irrelevant and unused in most SOHo situations. Etc. (I had to write a script just to empty TEMP files because there are about a half dozen possible TEMP folders on XP!) So for myself, I can clean up XP to the point that it's as fast as Win98 and handles a load much better. And I can work around most of the restrictions, poor design, the fact that the Find applet doesn't really work, etc. That makes it rather nice to use, at least offline. But while I'll recommend XP over Win98 to non-tech friends, I still cringe when doing so. It's not so much the best product but rather the lesser of the evils.
From: Schmidt on 13 Jan 2009 12:41 "mayayana" <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:%23a2HG6ZdJHA.1532(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > build yourself a new CD-image from the original XP- > > CD with the use of: http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html > I've seen that. It looks like a good idea, though > I haven't tried it. From my experience with it, the behaviour of XP is definitely a bit different, if e.g. the switchoff of services is directly done within nLite (for the install- CD-image), compared with a later switchoff of services from a "normal" XP-install (which often results in the usual unwanted "re-popping-on-effect" you've already experienced). Not only gives nLite a detailed description, what an appropriate "switchoff" implicates (and does), it also ensures a correct switchoff of dependent services in a way that the new XP-install later on will play with the remaining stuff as good as possible. And IIRC the RPC-services are also included as a "disable-option" in nLite (though not recommended). > But that's certainly not something > that one can recommend to a non-techy person, ... Yep, thought that you only had your own machine(s) in mind. Nonetheless, if you prepared your own nLite-Image-CD, which worked well for you - why not give that CD to your "unexperienced neighbour", in case he has a licensed copy of XP and only wants to "refresh" his former XP-installation on his System. But if we talk about "out of the box-experience", then you may be right - then a Win98-install, paired with a good hardware-firewall is more secure (at least with regards to the "spyware-topics") than a Default-XP-Install. And regarding your "Linux-aversion" <g> - just wait a bit more (maybe only one year or so), then you should be able to download modern distributions, which offer much greater hardware compatibility than Win98 (and also the current XP) out of the box (not one single driver-install is needed, everything is in the kernel) - and that without any "spyware-" or registration-attempts. There are a lot of new enhancements and activities currently, to make the support of e.g. graphics-devices (mainly NVidia and ATI/AMD as the main-players currently) more stable - especially with regards to the new direct-rendering-features of the new Desktop- environments over OpenGL (as e.g. the new KDE 4, but also the AIGLX-support in the latest Gnome-versions). But also the Wireless-stack is currently "in focus" (already over the last months') and should play well with "everything on the market" then (be it USB-sticks or cards) - WebCams, TV-Cards the same, etc. pp... In 2010 also the Wine-support should be even more matured, so you should be able to run nearly everything which currently works on your Win98-install without problems directly on Linux, without any VMs (since I know, you don't like them ;-)). Olaf
From: Tom Shelton on 13 Jan 2009 13:01 On 2009-01-13, mayayana <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote: >> Me - diehard VB6 user. >> My friends - wanting to learn to program apps for Windows. > > Wouldn't it depend on your friends' aptitude > and longterm interests? Someone who's very > focused on it might do well with C++. And they > could take that to Linux. C# and VB.NET programs run on Linux as well. http://www.mono-project.com > At the other extreme, > VBScript can do a remarkable range of things, > taking advantage of COM components and providing > a GUI through HTAs. That might be more than > adequate for many people. Maybe the best help > would just be to help your friends navigate the > confusing landscape so that they can discover what > really appeals to them. Ewww... If your going to suggest a scripting language, how 'bout something a little more modern and cross platform - such as Python. It can do all of that, and more. > > Some people raise the support issue, but for > Microsoft support -- or lack of it -- is only a marketing > tool and means little. The real support is whether the software > will run. In that sense, for the forseeable future VB seems > to have the most extensive support on all Windows versions. > If one avoids ActiveX controls then VB can usually be > run without installing on everything from Win95 up. I > don't think any other "RAD" tool has that ability, other than > VC6. > But, can't take advantage of 64-bit multicore processors. VB.CLASSIC has an increasingly limited lifespan... At least in the enterprise. I feel sorry for anyone that still has to support Win9x. > If it were me I'd encourage my friend to find a > copy of VB online, though that's more a matter of > opinion and personal preference than of experience. > I haven't looked into the > other Basics very much because when I have looked > at them there seems to be too much focus on > "RAD". To me the beauty of VB is that it provides > RAD for GUI aspects and training wheels for Win32 API > programming -- the best of both worlds. And for the record - VB.NET (actually .NET in general) provides even better support, and you can actually call 64-bit api's as well. Don't believe me? I can name a number of things that .NET makes easier when dealing with native calls: 1. Direct support for Unicode API's. 2. Direct support for calling functions that use Unions 3. Direct support for both __stdcall and __cdecl calling conventions 4. Support for overloading function calls. And what about subclassing a win proc? In .NET it's safe and supported in the IDE. The more you write about .NET, the more obvious it becomes that you know nothing about it. Most of what write, seems to be based on your preconcieved prejudice or hearsay - and not based in actual fact. > I figure that > the core code should be lean and wrapper-free, as > much as possible, but that there's no sense spending > a lot of time coding basic GUI elements when that's > really not necessary. > > On the other hand, if someone wants to program on > Windows, isn't writing software for distribution, and really > doesn't care about gradually improving their skills and > the efficiency of their code -- First of all, most C# programmers I know probably know more about the internal workings of Windows then you do. So, I think you should probably loose the arrogant attitude. In fact, I would in fact posit that sticking with VB.CLASSIC is stunting your knowledge... Especially when it comes to more advanced techniques as multi-threading, etc. > if they just want to build > their own desktop trinkets, personalized music indexers, > etc. -- then maybe that's a case for VB.Net? They can > do that for free (if you don't count the requirement to > "register" with Microsoft), and they only have to learn the > object hierarchy, never needing to learn about how Windows > works. VB.Net seems to be what MS originally meant VB > to be: Lincoln Log programming for hobbyists and corporate > RAD practitioners who need to crank out a database front-end > quickly, without extensive training. > ..NET provides a lot of prebuilt classes - no doubt. But, how does that shelter you from knowing how windows works? The framework provides a lot of basics, but you quickly have to move outside the framework for more advanced stuff. > It's a tough question. I think about the same issues with > Windows. It's become a situation where the older the MS product > is, the better it's likely to be. It used to be that I would strongly > encourage people to stick with Win98. I can't *recommend* > XP to anyone. On the other hand, at this point it takes expertise > to run Win98, given the increasing lack of support in both > hardware and software. LOL... XP is far superior to Win98 - especially as a development environment. The stability factor alone puts Win9x of any kind to shame. > Macs are limited and grossly overpriced. Limited, no. They are a full Unix environment under the pretty gui. So, by comparison I would say they are even more flexible then any Windows envrionment. But, they are grossly overpriced :) > And it's really not realistic to recommend Linux. Why? > (Though I know that hundreds of Slashdotters would rabidly > disagree with me on that point. :) So I'm left saying, "Try to > get XP. It's crappy, bloated, restrictive spyware, but Vista's > worse on all of those scores and the next version will undoubtedly > be worse still." XP is a fine OS. Probably the best OS MS has produced to date - though, I've been quite impressed with the Windows 7 beta I'm playing with right now. I think I might actually create a partition and let it out of it's vm for a while on a dual boot. As for Vista - if you ask me, it's gotten a bad rap. It's slower and more resource intensive then I would like, but it's very stable. I think you've been watching to many "I'm a Mac" commercials. -- Tom Shelton
From: mayayana on 13 Jan 2009 13:19
> In 2010 also the Wine-support should be even more > matured, so you should be able to run nearly everything > which currently works on your Win98-install without > problems directly on Linux, without any VMs (since > I know, you don't like them ;-)). > Woops. I guess it means that one has become a curmudgeon when others know all of one's complaints without needing to voice them. :) Actually I don't have an aversion to Linux. I have a couple of versions installed and have explored it periodocally since about 1999. I haven't actually looked at updates for a couple of years now, but last time I did it was still a frustrating system for and by programmers. Two years ago I installed Suse10 with a test in mind: If I could find and install, for free, a good firewall and a CPU temp. monitor without a lot of arcane steps then that would be a good start and I'd start spending more time with Linux. My test failed notably. The temp. monitor (gKrellm) didn't run half of the time and required obscure configuration file edits that were not documented. As for firewalls, I couldn't find one that even had control for outgoing communication. They were just attack blockers, designed for use on servers, I suppose. ... But I'll try to keep an open mind and try a new Linux update one of these days. My tests with Wine 2 years ago were promising. Nothing ran perfectly, but most things ran "usably". |