| Author |
Message |
|
Eric Steine
#1 / 6
|
 VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6 I am looking into learning Visual Basic and have heard that VB4 is ok, VB5 is very Buggy, and VB6 is ok, but introduced new bugs. Any input on which one to buy and if they are buggy or not would be
appreciated. TIA.
|
| Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
Peter Stambaug
#2 / 6
|
VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6 VB4 is the only one that supports 16-bit development. If you are interested in that then that choose VB4, otherwise start with VB5 or VB6. VB5 vs VB6:
VB5 is a lot faster than VB4, being basically version 2 of VB that was
built on COM. It is much more optimized than VB4, and can produce native
EXE's which can be faster especially on CPU intensive tasks, but still
require the runtime library.
VB5 SP3 has some bugs (after all there is a list of some 200 VB5 bugs that
were repaired as part of VB6) but most of these will only hit certain
configurations. I personally haven't had any problems with VB5 since the
release of SP3, and I know many others who haven't either.
VB6 has some bugs left, especially when it comes to installation. In
addition, the state of the online documentation was not great. MS is about
to release a sp of VB6, but the key fixes they are listing have to do with
really odd errors in the VB6 and MFC runtime dll's.
As a former beta tester I can tell you that VB6 is just plain better than
VB5 for development. I am VERY unhappy with the online documentation, but
haven't encountered any other problems since the first release candidate
version. All of the "big" publicized enhancements in VB6 have to to with
Web and enterprise (read data access) development, but there are a lot of
subtle changes to the language that add up to a fairly nice product. I
would see it as more of a VB5.5, but at least they didn't call it VB2000.
Basically, I would probably reccomend using VB6 if you are just starting,
especially since that is where you will get the best support from MS (they
haven't figured out yet that not everyone can upgrade right away). However,
You might want to consider VB5 if only because of the wholes in some places
within the docs.
Peter S
|
| Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Vince Poll
#3 / 6
|
VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6 On 31 Oct 1998 21:01:12 GMT, "Eric Steiner" Quote:
>I am looking into learning Visual Basic and have heard that VB4 is ok, VB5 >is very Buggy, and VB6 is ok, but introduced new bugs. >Any input on which one to buy and if they are buggy or not would be
>appreciated. TIA.
Simply put, there IS no Microsoft software nowadays that isn't buggy. All MS software has bugs. Well, all SOFTware has bugs, too, I suppose. But Microsoft used to be exemplary in providing quality software - QuickBASIC, Basic PDS etc. They dotted the i's and crossed the t's. The help was excellent. The books that came with the product were excellent. Then Microsoft discovered how to{*filter*}more money out of punters by saving on paper and providing on-line help. People screamed, so they got Microsoft Press to publish practically exactly the same books that used to be provided for free. So now you bought the product, then paid extra for the books which told you how to use the product. Now they don't even have enough pride or sense of dedication to bring
out almost-bug-free software. Just look at the most recent service
pack for Office 97. Such a pile of poo that even MS had to withdraw it
shortly after. It seems the only thing MS is interested in is yet more
of those daft animated assistants, or natural language interfaces, or
other gimmicky 'features'. What makes me absolutely sick is that
Inprise nee Borland and other companies just roll over, gaze up Bill's
bum, then complain to the DOJ that MS has shat upon them again. Why
can't they get off their backsides and provide an alternative to MS'
buggy software? The only chance the PC world has left is that the DOJ
wins the current anti-trust case and MS is split up or heavily fined,
or both. It'll take something like that to bring the gee-whizz-kids
back into the real world where quality counts.
Vince
|
| Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
phroGg.phuZ
#4 / 6
|
VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6 so. you're pro-microsoft, huh? =) phroGg
Quote:
>On 31 Oct 1998 21:01:12 GMT, "Eric Steiner"
>>I am looking into learning Visual Basic and have heard that VB4 is ok, VB5
>>is very Buggy, and VB6 is ok, but introduced new bugs.
>>Any input on which one to buy and if they are buggy or not would be
>>appreciated. TIA.
>Simply put, there IS no Microsoft software nowadays that isn't buggy.
>All MS software has bugs. Well, all SOFTware has bugs, too, I suppose.
>But Microsoft used to be exemplary in providing quality software -
>QuickBASIC, Basic PDS etc. They dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
>The help was excellent. The books that came with the product were
>excellent. Then Microsoft discovered how to{*filter*}more money out of
>punters by saving on paper and providing on-line help. People
>screamed, so they got Microsoft Press to publish practically exactly
>the same books that used to be provided for free. So now you bought
>the product, then paid extra for the books which told you how to use
>the product.
>Now they don't even have enough pride or sense of dedication to bring
>out almost-bug-free software. Just look at the most recent service
>pack for Office 97. Such a pile of poo that even MS had to withdraw it
>shortly after. It seems the only thing MS is interested in is yet more
>of those daft animated assistants, or natural language interfaces, or
>other gimmicky 'features'. What makes me absolutely sick is that
>Inprise nee Borland and other companies just roll over, gaze up Bill's
>bum, then complain to the DOJ that MS has shat upon them again. Why
>can't they get off their backsides and provide an alternative to MS'
>buggy software? The only chance the PC world has left is that the DOJ
>wins the current anti-trust case and MS is split up or heavily fined,
>or both. It'll take something like that to bring the gee-whizz-kids
>back into the real world where quality counts.
>Vince
|
| Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Stev
#5 / 6
|
VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6
Agreed!
Except for the statement:
Quote: >The only chance the PC world has left is that the DOJ
>wins the current anti-trust case and MS is split up or heavily fined,
>or both. It'll take something like that to bring the gee-whizz-kids
>back into the real world where quality counts.
It'll take media and consumer demand for quality and reliability, instead of more gee-wiz feature bloat, for the PC world to start producing less buggy software. In some ways, the Internet has contributed to the release of buggy
software. It is too easy for the software company to patch the bugs
after the initial release (via service packs). Financially, it makes
sence for them to release their products as soon as possible,
recognize the revenues in their financials, capture market share
quickly, and then post the endless release of service packs to their
web-site. Even worse, it makes sence for them to come out with an
upgrade (more revenue), which then fixes the bugs, but then creates
new ones.
Unfortunately, the trend is not good. We are accepting software with
more bugs in their initial releases than ever before. All software
has bugs, and software companies will always need to make decisions
regarding how many bugs and what type of bugs are not fixed during the
initial release. It just seems that the "software bug free bar" is
constantly being lowered. At this rate, we will need to download
Service Pack (SP) 1 to just load the software without GPFs.
What the software company does not seem to care about, is the cost to
the consumer of dealing with the bugs (wasted productivity); but then
it does not appear that the consumer has cared that much.
Is VB 6.0 SP1 release yet? Is MS Office SP2 (re-release 1) stable?
How is Win NT SP4? The list goes on :(.
Finally, regarding the question VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6. For real mission
critical stuff, we still use VB3.
Steven
Quote: >Simply put, there IS no Microsoft software nowadays that isn't buggy. >All MS software has bugs. Well, all SOFTware has bugs, too, I suppose. >But Microsoft used to be exemplary in providing quality software - >QuickBASIC, Basic PDS etc. They dotted the i's and crossed the t's. >The help was excellent. The books that came with the product were >excellent. Then Microsoft discovered how to{*filter*}more money out of >punters by saving on paper and providing on-line help. People >screamed, so they got Microsoft Press to publish practically exactly >the same books that used to be provided for free. So now you bought >the product, then paid extra for the books which told you how to use >the product. >Now they don't even have enough pride or sense of dedication to bring
>out almost-bug-free software. Just look at the most recent service
>pack for Office 97. Such a pile of poo that even MS had to withdraw it
>shortly after. It seems the only thing MS is interested in is yet more
>of those daft animated assistants, or natural language interfaces, or
>other gimmicky 'features'. What makes me absolutely sick is that
>Inprise nee Borland and other companies just roll over, gaze up Bill's
>bum, then complain to the DOJ that MS has shat upon them again. Why
>can't they get off their backsides and provide an alternative to MS'
>buggy software? The only chance the PC world has left is that the DOJ
>wins the current anti-trust case and MS is split up or heavily fined,
>or both. It'll take something like that to bring the gee-whizz-kids
>back into the real world where quality counts.
>Vince
|
| Thu, 19 Apr 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Simon Wurste
#6 / 6
|
VB4 vs VB5 vs VB6 Hi All, It'd be nice if Borland would take some bells and whistles (read: really useful features) from Delphi and stick them in a product that would use BASIC as the backbone language: then maybe MS-VB would be better. Simon Quote:
> On 31 Oct 1998 21:01:12 GMT, "Eric Steiner"
> >I am looking into learning Visual Basic and have heard that VB4 is ok, VB5
> >is very Buggy, and VB6 is ok, but introduced new bugs.
> >Any input on which one to buy and if they are buggy or not would be
> >appreciated. TIA.
> Simply put, there IS no Microsoft software nowadays that isn't buggy.
> All MS software has bugs. Well, all SOFTware has bugs, too, I suppose.
> But Microsoft used to be exemplary in providing quality software -
> QuickBASIC, Basic PDS etc. They dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
> The help was excellent. The books that came with the product were
> excellent. Then Microsoft discovered how to{*filter*}more money out of
> punters by saving on paper and providing on-line help. People
> screamed, so they got Microsoft Press to publish practically exactly
> the same books that used to be provided for free. So now you bought
> the product, then paid extra for the books which told you how to use
> the product.
> Now they don't even have enough pride or sense of dedication to bring
> out almost-bug-free software. Just look at the most recent service
> pack for Office 97. Such a pile of poo that even MS had to withdraw it
> shortly after. It seems the only thing MS is interested in is yet more
> of those daft animated assistants, or natural language interfaces, or
> other gimmicky 'features'. What makes me absolutely sick is that
> Inprise nee Borland and other companies just roll over, gaze up Bill's
> bum, then complain to the DOJ that MS has shat upon them again. Why
> can't they get off their backsides and provide an alternative to MS'
> buggy software? The only chance the PC world has left is that the DOJ
> wins the current anti-trust case and MS is split up or heavily fined,
> or both. It'll take something like that to bring the gee-whizz-kids
> back into the real world where quality counts.
> Vince
|
| Fri, 27 Apr 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
| |
|
