Visual Basic, VB 4.0 disappointments / Just Say No to VB 4.0

VB 4.0 disappointments / Just Say No to VB 4.0

Author	Message
Peter G. Milla #1 / 4	VB 4.0 disappointments / Just Say No to VB 4.0 Quote: >> If you are walking backwards still developing 16 bit apps, then I >> would suggest that is part of the problem. >A a bigger part of the problem is that our client base is broken up >into 16 and 32 bit segments. Right now the majority are 16-bit users. >I'm not "walking backwards", I'm living with the market I have. >People have been talking about 32-bit OSes since the first 32-bit >x86 appeared, we all want it, but have this millstone called "legacy >apps" tied around our necks. Amen to that! Some of our customers are still using our old DOS versions of our software because they are still using their x286's w/ 1 Meg of RAM and a 40 Meg HD. Those of us making either "semi" commercial apps or writing custom software on demand have to cater to the clients/customers! It may be all well and good to say "here's 32 bit software, we don't make 16 bit stuff anymore" but you would loose large numbers of customers. That would be like having all the car dealers stop selling used cars. Would all those people just start buying new ones? I think not. Quote: >> Of course they are slow, the OS is having to do a lot of thunking. >Not my department, check the layer beneath me....hmmm, seems like >MS is responsible for that, are they not? I think some of the main performance issues have been 16 bit VB4.0 on a 16 bit platform (eg Win 3.1, Wfw 3.11)...not 16 bit apps on a 32 bit platform. Quote: >> Windows 95 itself is nothing more than a transitional form >> to a full 32 bit OS. I would agree, however, see comments above. As developers, you _MUST_ cater to the market and what clients/customers want or use. Right now, whether it's wise or not, people are moving towards Win95. I think that the new shell on top of NT will however be the OS that sees the most interest in large coporate situations and for power users. My .02 Peter
Sun, 05 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT

Francis G. Kostel #2 / 4	VB 4.0 disappointments / Just Say No to VB 4.0 Quote: > I haven't tried recompiling my 3.0 programs and I don't intend to. Ummm, some of us have no choice in the matter. Some of us earn our living supporting code that was started way back in V1.0. Quote: > If you are walking backwards still developing 16 bit apps, then I > would suggest that is part of the problem. A a bigger part of the problem is that our client base is broken up into 16 and 32 bit segments. Right now the majority are 16-bit users. I'm not "walking backwards", I'm living with the market I have. People have been talking about 32-bit OSes since the first 32-bit x86 appeared, we all want it, but have this millstone called "legacy apps" tied around our necks. Quote: > Of course they are slow, the OS is having to do a lot of thunking. Not my department, check the layer beneath me....hmmm, seems like MS is responsible for that, are they not? Quote: > While there may be a 16 bit version supplied, it was a waste of MS's > time to even bother with it. You think so? I suggest your view of the industry is a bit clouded. Anyone who runs out in from of the pack too far dies a fairly quick death, letsee... Osborne, AppleIII, NeXT, etc. MS cannot abandon 16 bit stuff until the market moves away from it. Quote: > Windows 95 itself is nothing more than a transitional form > to a full 32 bit OS. Right. Unfortunately, rather than focus VB4 on what developers want it seems to have been made to do want MS wants in spite of the developers. What did developers MOST want? A compiler. What did we get? Not a compiler. The new language features are nifty, I'm glad there's a 32-bit version, I'm glad it works with NT and Win95, but where's the compiler and why are we the test dummies for OLE? The C/C++ folks sure haven't embraced OLE, for years MS has been begging them to adopt it (I _DO_ mean YEARS), but everyone ignorees it hoping it will go away, but it doesn't. Yuckk! What a mess! --fran above opinions are not of: F.G. Kostella & Asociates ** Design, Programming, Graphics
Sun, 05 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT

Roger Kendal #3 / 4	VB 4.0 disappointments / Just Say No to VB 4.0 Quote: >> I haven't tried recompiling my 3.0 programs and I don't intend to. >Ummm, some of us have no choice in the matter. Some of us earn our >living supporting code that was started way back in V1.0. >> If you are walking backwards still developing 16 bit apps, then I >> would suggest that is part of the problem. >A a bigger part of the problem is that our client base is broken up >into 16 and 32 bit segments. Right now the majority are 16-bit users. >I'm not "walking backwards", I'm living with the market I have. >People have been talking about 32-bit OSes since the first 32-bit >x86 appeared, we all want it, but have this millstone called "legacy >apps" tied around our necks. >> Of course they are slow, the OS is having to do a lot of thunking. >Not my department, check the layer beneath me....hmmm, seems like >MS is responsible for that, are they not? >> While there may be a 16 bit version supplied, it was a waste of MS's >> time to even bother with it. >You think so? I suggest your view of the industry is a bit clouded. >Anyone who runs out in from of the pack too far dies a fairly quick >death, letsee... Osborne, AppleIII, NeXT, etc. MS cannot abandon 16 >bit stuff until the market moves away from it. >> Windows 95 itself is nothing more than a transitional form >> to a full 32 bit OS. >Right. Unfortunately, rather than focus VB4 on what developers want >it seems to have been made to do want MS wants in spite of the >developers. What did developers MOST want? A compiler. What did >we get? Not a compiler. The new language features are nifty, I'm >glad there's a 32-bit version, I'm glad it works with NT and Win95, >but where's the compiler and why are we the test dummies for OLE? >The C/C++ folks sure haven't embraced OLE, for years MS has been >begging them to adopt it (I _DO_ mean YEARS), but everyone ignorees >it hoping it will go away, but it doesn't. Yuckk! What a mess! >--fran > above opinions are not of: > F.G. Kostella & Asociates >** Design, Programming, Graphics RIGHT.....why does MS think most of us give a {filter}about OLE?? WHY OLE??????? What a resource hog and incomplete conception! -- Roger A. Kendall Music Perception and Cognition and Musical Acoustics Laboratory UCLA
Sun, 05 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT

ffe #4 / 4	VB 4.0 disappointments / Just Say No to VB 4.0 Quote: >Ummm, some of us have no choice in the matter. Some of us earn our >living supporting code that was started way back in V1.0. I still support old code too, but I use an old compiler to do it. Quote: >A a bigger part of the problem is that our client base is broken up >into 16 and 32 bit segments. Right now the majority are 16-bit users. >I'm not "walking backwards", I'm living with the market I have. My point was VB 4.0 is intended for 32bit development which is why the standard edition only comes as a 32bit tool. If that's not what you're going to use it for, there is no reason to upgrade from 3.0. If you need to develop for both, use the tools truly targeted for the 16 and 32. Quote: >Not my department, check the layer beneath me....hmmm, seems like >MS is responsible for that, are they not? 16bit is 16bit and 32 is 32. No way around that. If you try to run one on the other, expect problems. Quote: >You think so? I suggest your view of the industry is a bit clouded. >Anyone who runs out in from of the pack too far dies a fairly quick >death, letsee... Osborne, AppleIII, NeXT, etc. MS cannot abandon 16 >bit stuff until the market moves away from it. >Right. Unfortunately, rather than focus VB4 on what developers want >it seems to have been made to do want MS wants in spite of the >developers. What did developers MOST want? A compiler. What did >we get? Not a compiler. The new language features are nifty, I'm >glad there's a 32-bit version, I'm glad it works with NT and Win95, >but where's the compiler and why are we the test dummies for OLE? >The C/C++ folks sure haven't embraced OLE, for years MS has been >begging them to adopt it (I _DO_ mean YEARS), but everyone ignorees >it hoping it will go away, but it doesn't. Yuckk! What a mess! MS had a 16bit version already. They did nothing to improve it and so wasted their time making it run under 95. It's always best to do development under the target OS so if you need to develop 16bit apps, work on a 16bit system. Compiled verses p-code is a red herring. The performance difference is usually minimal and poor coding is usually much more significant. Plus there are tradeoffs such as a larger exe and non- portable code. C/C++ folks don't embrace anything - they prefer to spend hours and miles of code wrapping their target instead of a gentle tap of the mouse to embrace it. ;-) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- I've never met a human that liked me, and I've never met any other species that didn't. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 06 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 4 post ]