Alternatives 
Author Message
 Alternatives

Me - diehard VB6 user.
My friends - wanting to learn to program apps for Windows.
So what about
  RealBasic
  delphi
  powerbasic
What would be easiest for me (in case I get involved in the other language)
to provide sample VB6 source to them and have them learn from my examples in
one of the three mentioned or for that matter any other non-MS product?
Which one is sophisticated enough to support complex applications?
i.e. something worth really getting into.
Thanks.


Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:47:01 GMT  
 Alternatives
hi Bee,


Quote:
> Me - diehard VB6 user.
> My friends - wanting to learn to program apps for Windows.
> So what about
>  RealBasic
>  Delphi
>  PowerBasic

Of those three I would pick Delphi as it is the most advanced and most
enterprise ready compared to RealBasic and PowerBasic.
I don't like RealBasic but it is better than PowerBasic as far as UI stuff
goes.  PowerBasic for example has no real support for activex controls, so
you are delving into a limited market.  you can use them in it, just not a
design time experience.

Quote:
> What would be easiest for me (in case I get involved in the other
> language)
> to provide sample VB6 source to them and have them learn from my examples
> in
> one of the three mentioned or for that matter any other non-MS product?

Of those three, probably PowerBasic.

Quote:
> Which one is sophisticated enough to support complex applications?
> i.e. something worth really getting into.

Of those three, Delphi is miles ahead of the other two.  Vb.Net of course
provides the same power and much of what you use in VB6 can be used in
VB.NET: as in comparatively of the three you mentioned and VB.NET, VB.NET
will be the easiest for you to help them with.  But really, in any of them,
you need to learn the languages and their implementations. Delphi is a very
different language. Even in VB.NET, although much of it is similar, the
advice isn't always the best because it has features you don't have in VB6,
threading, inside instance subclassing, inheritance, generics, etc. So
advice such as use a Collection isn't really good if there are better suited
containers such as a generic dictionary. Likewise advice about subclassing
needs to focus more on why you are subclassing not the mechanics of it,
because usually the WndProc is exposed or accessible. My recommendation
would be VB.NET, Delphi would be the next choice.


Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:27:28 GMT  
 Alternatives


Quote:
> Of those three, Delphi is miles ahead of the other two.
> Vb.Net of course provides the same power . . .

Cut the crap, McCarthy! The OP asked about three specific products
(RealBasic, Delphi and PowerBasic). In fact he specifically said that he
wanted a non Micro$oft product. Stop your pathetic dotnet crusade on behalf
of your Micro$oft puppet handler and wind your neck in! Be a man and cut the
strings, boy!

Michael



Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:20:25 GMT  
 Alternatives



Still changing your email alias.  What a troll.



Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:42:35 GMT  
 Alternatives


Quote:
> Still changing your email alias.  What a troll.

You keep changing yours, so what's the difference. What a troll.


Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:55:04 GMT  
 Alternatives

Quote:
> 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. 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.

   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.

  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. 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 -- 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.

  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. Macs are limited and grossly
overpriced. And it's really not realistic to recommend Linux.
(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."

Quote:
> So what about
>   RealBasic
>   Delphi
>   PowerBasic
> What would be easiest for me (in case I get involved in the other
language)
> to provide sample VB6 source to them and have them learn from my examples
in
> one of the three mentioned or for that matter any other non-MS product?
> Which one is sophisticated enough to support complex applications?
> i.e. something worth really getting into.
> Thanks.



Sat, 02 Jul 2011 23:06:40 GMT  
 Alternatives



Quote:
> 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.

Quote:
> 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



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:13:25 GMT  
 Alternatives

Quote:
> 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.



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:49:51 GMT  
 Alternatives



Quote:
> > build yourself a new CD-image from the original XP-
> > CD with the use of: http://www.*-*-*.com/
>    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).

Quote:
> 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) - {*filter*}s, 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



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:41:36 GMT  
 Alternatives

Quote:
>> 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

Quote:
> 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.

Quote:

>    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.

Quote:
>   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.

Quote:
> 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.

Quote:
>  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.

Quote:
>   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.

Quote:
> 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 :)

Quote:
> And it's really not realistic to recommend Linux.

Why?

Quote:
> (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



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:01:21 GMT  
 Alternatives

Quote:
> 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".



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:19:07 GMT  
 Alternatives

Quote:
> > 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.

   Ewww? The question was about a form of
Basic where code could be shared for writing
on Windows. VBS is very similar to VB and very
COM-friendly. And it's well-suited to automating
IE, MS Word, etc. In that sense it's very handy
for "power users" who may not want to get into
programming.

Quote:

> .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.

  Hmm. Quickly? One wonders what the framework
is for -- that 88 MB of bloat that .Net software wants
to dump onto a system -- if it "quickly" becomes
inadequate. (But I already know the DotNettiac
answer to that: "These days 88 MB is nothing. And
hard disks are cheaper than ever!" )


Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:54:48 GMT  
 Alternatives

Quote:
>> > 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.

>    Ewww? The question was about a form of
> Basic where code could be shared for writing
> on Windows.

Hmmm... Since the OP mentioned Delphi in his list, it seems kind of implied
that a response not be a form of BASIC.

Quote:
> VBS is very similar to VB and very
> COM-friendly.

Yes - it is similar to VB, I'll give you that.  But, you can use com objects
from python as well.

Quote:
> And it's well-suited to automating
> IE, MS Word, etc. In that sense it's very handy
> for "power users" who may not want to get into
> programming.

So, is Python.

Quote:

>> .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.

>   Hmm. Quickly?
> One wonders what the framework is for

You see I said for advanced stuff right?  No framework can be all things to
all people.  Though, the framework does take care of a lot of plumbing - so
even when you have to step out, it's still easier and far superior to the
mechanisms provided by VB.CLASSIC - or did you miss the part of my post where
I enumerated a few of advanced api calling capabilities of .NET vs VB.CLASSIC?

Quote:
> -- that 88 MB of bloat that .Net software wants
> to dump onto a system -- if it "quickly" becomes
> inadequate. (But I already know the DotNettiac
> answer to that: "These days 88 MB is nothing. And
> hard disks are cheaper than ever!" )

Well, on most modern machines that is exactly true - especially as you add
more applications because that disk cost is then amoratized over the number of
applications using it.  Beyond that, you apparently haven't heard of this:

http://windowsclient.net/wpf/wpf35/wpf-intro-client-profile.aspx
--
Tom Shelton



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:22:29 GMT  
 Alternatives



Quote:
> > 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. :)

<g>

Quote:
>    Two years ago I installed Suse10 ...

Then you've started with the "worst distro" of this time.
(Suse 10 was admittedly a really bad release, known
even in the Suse-community - e.g. the new OpenSuse
releases are back to old "quality-standards" now).

Quote:
>  ... 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".

Two years are a long time in IT - and especially in the
fast moving OpenSource-scene (at least in the prospering
projects as the Linux-Kernel and also Wine, which both
have constantly increasing "commit-counts").

I'd recommend (since you are a developer) a Debian-
based Distro (as e.g. my favourite one: Sidux.com) - or
if you want an even larger community- or forum-activity,
then there's of course Ubuntu (also Debian-based, both
Distros offer one of the nicest packet-managers for
software-updates/upgrades over internet, including
kernel-replacements without any problems by a
simple commandline-tool, called 'apt').

Olaf



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:17:56 GMT  
 Alternatives
  Thanks for that info. I guess it is about
time that I take another look at Linux.
Quote:
> > > 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. :)
> <g>

> >    Two years ago I installed Suse10 ...
> Then you've started with the "worst distro" of this time.
> (Suse 10 was admittedly a really bad release, known
> even in the Suse-community - e.g. the new OpenSuse
> releases are back to old "quality-standards" now).

> >  ... 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".
> Two years are a long time in IT - and especially in the
> fast moving OpenSource-scene (at least in the prospering
> projects as the Linux-Kernel and also Wine, which both
> have constantly increasing "commit-counts").

> I'd recommend (since you are a developer) a Debian-
> based Distro (as e.g. my favourite one: Sidux.com) - or
> if you want an even larger community- or forum-activity,
> then there's of course Ubuntu (also Debian-based, both
> Distros offer one of the nicest packet-managers for
> software-updates/upgrades over internet, including
> kernel-replacements without any problems by a
> simple commandline-tool, called 'apt').

> Olaf



Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:32:59 GMT  
 
 [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Alternative to VB6, and open source alternative

2. Alternative to Vlookup in Access 2002

3. Editing registry with code, or an alternative?

4. Alternative?

5. Alternative for SendKeys?

6. Alternative to SendKeys?

7. Alternative of Sendkeys

8. Alternative to TextWidth

9. Can't update Alternative Access Runtime with SR-1

10. OLE alternative?

11. Is there an alternative to merge fields ?

12. Alternative to DSN

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software