Searching \ for '[OT] Windows Development Choices' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=windows+development
Search entire site for: 'Windows Development Choices'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Windows Development Choices'
2009\05\29@182952 by Tony Vandiver

flavicon
face
Hi All,

   I often wonder if I've gone down the wrong road with Microsoft
Visual C++ as my Windows development system of choice.  As it morphed
into other things, I never really figured out what .NET was, but my old
programs would load and compile, so I kept marching along with the
updates and even though I had to struggle with handling the com port as
a windows data stream, I finally got that to work and have used it over
and over.

   However, now it seems like it's a huge hassle to write anything on
XP that's compatible with the majority of people I distribute my code to
since upgrading to Visual C++ 2008.  I wondering what you guys use for
PC side applications (not Linux - that's a topic I don't want to get
into at the moment - been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, and still
don't know what I'm doing).  Almost everything I've written interfaces
to a microcontroller in some way - used to be through the serial port,
and now is leaning toward USB, but for something that seems so trivial,
why is it so difficult for me to publish something that all my users can
install without having to install .NET this and that and this
pre-install package for VC++ compatibility, and on and on without an
end.  Invariably, I'm having to install my app on the customers machine
myself and wind up googling all the error messages to find out that
oops, you need to stand on your head first to get this to execute.  Is
there another platform that I've missed along the way that everyone has
moved to that allows an application to be loaded in one fell swoop and
run the first time and every time on an X86 machine?  Java, Perl, VB?  
What are you guys/gals using, and when did I miss the boat, or should I
have stayed on the one I was on (Visual C++ 5.0 originally before .NET)
and count on the backwards compatibility of Windows?

Thanks for any words of advice,

Tony




2009\05\29@200224 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Tony Vandiver wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I used to be a big Delphi fan, until the programs I wrote started crashing
on Windows XP computers with HyperThreading.

Recently, we needed to write a bootloader for one of our projects, and a PC
utility to go with it. The guy who was working on the project, wanted to do
it in VC++ .NET 2008, but he hated . I suggested trying C#, which I used
briefly myself. He says he loves everything about it, especially the
language and IDE features. To me, C# feels a lot like Delphi.

While a few years ago we resisted switching to .NET because the users would
have to install it on their machines in order for the apps to run, today it
is basically a non-issue, as most Windows PCs support it by default.

Bottom line, I don't think you missed the boat, switching to .NET a few
years back would have probably been more hassle than it's worth. But now is
a good time. :)

Vitaliy

2009\05\29@202242 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Vitaliy <spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:

> I used to be a big Delphi fan, until the programs I wrote started crashing
> on Windows XP computers with HyperThreading.
>
> Recently, we needed to write a bootloader for one of our projects, and a PC
> utility to go with it. The guy who was working on the project, wanted to do
> it in VC++ .NET 2008, but he hated . I suggested trying C#, which I used
> briefly myself. He says he loves everything about it, especially the
> language and IDE features. To me, C# feels a lot like Delphi.
>

No wonder why (quote from wikipedia)

C#'s principal designer and lead architect at Microsoft is Anders Hejlsberg,
who was previously involved with the design of Turbo
Pascal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal>,
CodeGear Delphi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeGear_Delphi> (formerly
Borland Delphi), and Visual J++<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B>.
In interviews and technical papers he has stated that flaws in most major
programming languages (e.g. C++
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B>,
Java<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28programming_language%29>,
Delphi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeGear_Delphi>, and
Smalltalk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk>)
drove the fundamentals of the Common Language
Runtime<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime>(CLR),
which, in turn, drove the design of the C# programming language
itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\29@203037 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
> Tony Vandiver wrote:
>>    I often wonder if I've gone down the wrong road with Microsoft
>> Visual C++ as my Windows development system of choice.  ...


I strongly recommend the .NET world. You'll have a bit of a learning curve
getting into it, but the functionality in the framework is nothing short of
amazing. For example, I implemented a complete multithreaded TCP/IP server
in under 100 lines of code! As another example, all of 30 lines of code,
taking advantage of the regular expression support solved a problem I
figured would have taken pages of ordinary C code.

As you are already a C++, I recommend you move to C#; otherwise C# or VB is
a toss-up. I write in both. C# when I can, VB when my customers expect to
play with the code when I am done.

As far as needing a bunch of files installed... if the correct version of
.NET is installed you are pretty much set. Everything just works. If it
isn't installed it can be easily downloaded and installed from Microsoft
(most users can even get it right).

I like to write my apps to use the .NET 2.0 framework when possible, even
though the latest and greatest version is 3.5. Most Windows PCs tend to have
.NET 2.0 installed already for one reason or another and so my app just
works.

-- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2009\05\29@205941 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Bob Ammerman <.....rammermanKILLspamspam@spam@verizon.net> wrote:

> As another example, all of 30 lines of code,
> taking advantage of the regular expression support solved a problem I
> figured would have taken pages of ordinary C code.
>

See? Solarwind was right after all. Just install .NET on PIC and you are
done. :-)  (Sorry, bad joke but could not resist)


On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Bob Ammerman <rammermanspamKILLspamverizon.net> wrote:

> As you are already a C++, I recommend you move to C#; otherwise C# or VB is
> a toss-up. I write in both. C# when I can, VB when my customers expect to
> play with the code when I am done.
>

Personally I think C++ was only a bad moment for every C programmers.
I->Hardly->can->see->any->C++->code->without->heavily->using->that->bloody->arrow.
Java and C# approach is much better approaching to OOP and .NET helps you to
write less error prone code. I am saying that even though not liking the
idea of using emulated code all the time.

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\29@210243 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Tamas Rudnai <.....tamas.rudnaiKILLspamspam.....gmail.com>wrote:

> approach is much better approaching


Bugfix: One "approach less" -- This sentence was inherited from sleepiness
and clickingToEarly objects...

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\29@214317 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Tony Vandiver
<EraseMEtonyspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTtraceelectronics.com> wrote:
>  I often wonder if I've gone down the wrong road with Microsoft
> Visual C++ as my Windows development system of choice.  As it morphed
> into other things, I never really figured out what .NET was, but my old
> programs would load and compile, so I kept marching along with the
> updates and even though I had to struggle with handling the com port as
> a windows data stream, I finally got that to work and have used it over
> and over.
>
>  However, now it seems like it's a huge hassle to write anything on
> XP that's compatible with the majority of people I distribute my code to
> since upgrading to Visual C++ 2008.

If you are comfortable with Visual C++ and MFC, you can continue
using them for Windows development without using .Net. This is what
I know. For example, pk2cmd code does not depend on .Net and it
is developed using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005. 2008 should be the
same. For native code development, Visual C++ is one of the best
as far as I know even though I am not a programmer and I got
headache reading Visual C++ and MFC related codes. I can
read C# and VB.Net code better (but not the PInvoke Interop part for
accessing Windows API -- that was written for C/C++).

pk2cmd for PICkit 2: http://www.microchip.com/pickit2

Mike Zoran has some nice USB example and he also uses
Visual C++ 2005 for host program and he uses WinUSB.
He does not use .Net.
www.microchip.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=264046
http://www.raccoonrezcats.com/

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\29@220215 by cdb

flavicon
face
Have you considered RealBasic? If the pro version is purchased you can also compile for OSx and Linux as well as Windows.
The standard version you have to choose which single build type you want.

Takes a little getting used to, but doesn't require dotNet produces executable files.

Colin
--
cdb, colinspamspam_OUTbtech-online.co.uk on 30/05/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\05\29@234014 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>If you are comfortable with Visual C++ and MFC, you can continue
using them for Windows development without using .Net. This is what
I know. For example, pk2cmd code does not depend on .Net and it
is developed using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005. 2008 should be the
same. For native code development, Visual C++ is one of the best
as far as I know even though I am not a programmer and I got
headache reading Visual C++ and MFC related codes. I can
read C# and VB.Net code better (but not the PInvoke Interop part for
accessing Windows API -- that was written for C/C++).<

I think there is a general agreement among programmers that MFC sucks.

Vitaliy

2009\05\29@235614 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Vitaliy <@spam@spamKILLspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>If you are comfortable with Visual C++ and MFC, you can continue
> using them for Windows development without using .Net. This is what
> I know. For example, pk2cmd code does not depend on .Net and it
> is developed using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005. 2008 should be the
> same. For native code development, Visual C++ is one of the best
> as far as I know even though I am not a programmer and I got
> headache reading Visual C++ and MFC related codes. I can
> read C# and VB.Net code better (but not the PInvoke Interop part for
> accessing Windows API -- that was written for C/C++).<
>
> I think there is a general agreement among programmers that MFC sucks.
>

I agree with that as a non-programmer. MFC must suck since I
could not go along with the steep learning curve and gave up learning
programming 10 years back partially because of MFC
and Win32 API. ;-)

On the other hand, even though it has a steep learning curve,
the programmers I know of think MFC is not bad. It is very powerful
and there are still so many complexed GUI design using MFC.

But if going for the .Net world, then Visual C++/CLI is not the
best choices. So people move on to C#. I know this gentlemen
( a nice Italian gentlemen in Microchip forum), he moved on to
C#  after trying Visual C++/CLI for GUI.
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/vclanguage/thread/bb4925a8-0700-45f1-a0d6-da27629a2bfa

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\30@080507 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Vitaliy <KILLspamspamKILLspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:
>> I think there is a general agreement among programmers that MFC
>> sucks.
>
> I agree with that as a non-programmer. MFC must suck since I could
> not go along with the steep learning curve and gave up learning
> programming 10 years back partially because of MFC and Win32 API. ;-)
>
>
> On the other hand, even though it has a steep learning curve, the
> programmers I know of think MFC is not bad. It is very powerful and
> there are still so many complexed GUI design using MFC.

It has the advantage of having a major market penetration. But that's a
bit a thing of the past -- if I wanted to use a powerful library, I'd
use .NET rather than MFC. It's present on as many systems if not more,
it's better standardized and it's more up to date. And it's (arguably)
better structured.

> But if going for the .Net world, then Visual C++/CLI is not the best
> choices. So people move on to C#. I know this gentlemen ( a nice
> Italian gentlemen in Microchip forum), he moved on to C#  after
> trying Visual C++/CLI for GUI.

Agreed. C++ may be a good choice for native programming, but not for
.NET. C# is similar enough and has much better support for the .NET way
of doing things, and once you got used to it, you probably don't look
back.

Gerhard

2009\05\30@083736 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Gerhard Fiedler
<RemoveMElistsTakeThisOuTspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
>> On the other hand, even though it has a steep learning curve, the
>> programmers I know of think MFC is not bad. It is very powerful and
>> there are still so many complexed GUI design using MFC.
>
> It has the advantage of having a major market penetration. But that's a
> bit a thing of the past -- if I wanted to use a powerful library, I'd
> use .NET rather than MFC. It's present on as many systems if not more,
> it's better standardized and it's more up to date. And it's (arguably)
> better structured.
>

I think the fact that Windows 2K/XP do not ship with .Net runtime
still plays a part why there are still people who do not like to use
.Net in some cases.

But if I were to learn Windows programming again, I will go for
the .NET side. And indeed I learned to read a bit of C# codes
lately. And yes there are many GUI designs moving to .NET
from MFC. But MFC will be there for a long time. And I think
QT also got some momentum and that does not rely on .Net
either. There are other cross platform GUI toolkits as well
which do not use .NET.

And there are some fields which are purly C/C++. I am
interested in the kernel driver side (reading a little bit of codes
for the USB side) and that is purely C/C++ and nothing of .NET.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\30@191855 by Tony Vandiver

flavicon
face
Hi All,

   So maybe I'm just dealing with a bunch of end users that don't have
.NET installed and I really need to learn to integrate the installation
of it if necessary into my setup package (I'm using Ghost Installer
which gives me the option to install a .NET package, but makes my
setup.exe huge - didn't realize till now that there is a distribution
package bundled with Visual Studio).  The other package that I seem to
need to install sometimes is vcredist_x86.exe, and I'm not sure what the
dependency is there.  I suppose I'll take a look at C# (sometimes I
really miss Turbo Pascal) since I have it as part of Visual Studio and
try to muddle through the .NET/redist_x86.exe install issues for now.

Thanks for the advice,

Tony


Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\05\31@053359 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
>     So maybe I'm just dealing with a bunch of end users that don't have
> .NET installed and I really need to learn to integrate the installation
> of it if necessary into my setup package (I'm using Ghost Installer
> which gives me the option to install a .NET package, but makes my
> setup.exe huge - didn't realize till now that there is a distribution
> package bundled with Visual Studio).  The other package that I seem to
> need to install sometimes is vcredist_x86.exe, and I'm not sure what the
> dependency is there.  I suppose I'll take a look at C# (sometimes I
> really miss Turbo Pascal) since I have it as part of Visual Studio and
> try to muddle through the .NET/redist_x86.exe install issues for now.


There really isn't a lot of .Net apps out there at the moment, so no-one in
user land installs it.  Much .Net is done server side, so the client
(browser) doesn't care.

SQL Server 2008 is one thing that needs the 3.5 framework (and it's 250 or
350Mb) but even that's usually just on the server.  If you're using Access
as the front end, that's still VBA so you don't need .Net (unless you like
dealing with VSTO).

The next release of Office (2010?) will drop VBA for .Net (maybe), so by
about 2015 most people will have the framework.  Not long to wait!  :)

Tony

2009\05\31@055511 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tony Smith <TakeThisOuTajsmithEraseMEspamspam_OUTbeagle.com.au> wrote:
> There really isn't a lot of .Net apps out there at the moment, so no-one in
> user land installs it.  Much .Net is done server side, so the client
> (browser) doesn't care.
>
> SQL Server 2008 is one thing that needs the 3.5 framework (and it's 250 or
> 350Mb) but even that's usually just on the server.  If you're using Access
> as the front end, that's still VBA so you don't need .Net (unless you like
> dealing with VSTO).
>
> The next release of Office (2010?) will drop VBA for .Net (maybe), so by
> about 2015 most people will have the framework.  Not long to wait!  :)

Vista has .Net 3.0 runtim built-in. So if you have the Vista PC, you
already have it. Windows 7 will ship with .Net 3.5 runtime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

Actually you need .Net for PICkit 2 PC standalone GUI application (C#).

All in all you probably have .Net runtime much earlier than 2015 unless
you are still using XP in 2015. ;-)


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@055927 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Tony Vandiver
<RemoveMEtonyspamTakeThisOuTtraceelectronics.com> wrote:
> The other package that I seem to
> need to install sometimes is vcredist_x86.exe, and I'm not sure what the
> dependency is there.

It does not depend on .Net. And this is the one you want to distribute
for your customer if you develop Windows native application using
Visual C++ 2008 (without .Net).
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf&displaylang=en

> I suppose I'll take a look at C# (sometimes I
> really miss Turbo Pascal) since I have it as part of Visual Studio and
> try to muddle through the .NET/redist_x86.exe install issues for now.

I think you do not need to go for .Net and the native application
without .Net will still be very popular. As mentioned before, there
are many fields which still need native Windows application.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@063229 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > The next release of Office (2010?) will drop VBA for .Net (maybe), so by
> > about 2015 most people will have the framework.  Not long to wait!  :)
>
> Vista has .Net 3.0 runtim built-in. So if you have the Vista PC, you
> already have it. Windows 7 will ship with .Net 3.5 runtime.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
>
> Actually you need .Net for PICkit 2 PC standalone GUI application (C#).
>
> All in all you probably have .Net runtime much earlier than 2015 unless
> you are still using XP in 2015. ;-)


I didn't find anything in Vista worth having, so I haven't upgraded (along
with everyone else).  Maybe Win7 will be different.

But yes, you're right, the Vista and beyond will have .Net, and hopefully
will keep it upgraded.

Unfortunately, I can see me still running XP in 2015, or at least using in
it in work situations.  Corporations are often very reluctant to upgrade
(too much breaks, training, cost etc) so I see all sorts of things still in
use.  :(

Tony

2009\05\31@073807 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Tony Smith <ajsmithEraseMEspam.....beagle.com.au> wrote:
>> Vista has .Net 3.0 runtim built-in. So if you have the Vista PC, you
>> already have it. Windows 7 will ship with .Net 3.5 runtime.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
>>
>
> But yes, you're right, the Vista and beyond will have .Net, and hopefully
> will keep it upgraded.
>
> Unfortunately, I can see me still running XP in 2015, or at least using in
> it in work situations.  Corporations are often very reluctant to upgrade
> (too much breaks, training, cost etc) so I see all sorts of things still in
> use.  :(

I am not so sure about this. Typically Corporations (especially medium
to big ones) will have certain upgrade cycle for the PCs, say 3 years
or at most 5 years. 3 years are because typically HP/Dell/etc offer
3-year warranties. And the last support year for XP is 2014. So
maybe for small shops, XP will still around (DOS and 98SE are
around as well now), but most of the corporations will not use
XP after 2014.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@080917 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > Unfortunately, I can see me still running XP in 2015, or at least using
in
> > it in work situations.  Corporations are often very reluctant to upgrade
> > (too much breaks, training, cost etc) so I see all sorts of things still
in
{Quote hidden}

Oh, I'm pretty sure.  I still see NT4 & Office '97 in some areas.  What
happens with corporations is some departments update, some don't, so you get
these little hold-outs for whatever reason.  The Office 2007 roll-out is
just starting, 2003 is the current standard (now 7 years old).  The current
recession will knock that back a couple of years for many.

Equipment seems to be used a lot longer too, way past the warranty period.
They only get replaced when they die.  I still see the older Dells, the ones
with the little flip-out panel on the front with the USB ports behind it.
New Dells are easy to spot, the keyboards have an actual volume control knob
(USB hub too!  Nice!  Get one!), the older ones don't.  Win7 will need new
PCs, so that's a bit ask for a large corporation.

To be honest, if the machine can run a browser, then it's good enough.  For
corporations, they're all moving to web apps.  I can hear the mainframe boys
chuckling in the background...

A web app doesn't help the original poster, of course, many on this list
will be in the same boat.

Tony

2009\05\31@084918 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Tony Smith <EraseMEajsmithspambeagle.com.au> wrote:
> Oh, I'm pretty sure.  I still see NT4 & Office '97 in some areas.  What
> happens with corporations is some departments update, some don't, so you get
> these little hold-outs for whatever reason.  The Office 2007 roll-out is
> just starting, 2003 is the current standard (now 7 years old).  The current
> recession will knock that back a couple of years for many.

Most of us still runs Windows XP SP2 and Office XP here. Office XP
is even older than 2003. But there are people who are using 2007 now.
There are also a few Vista machines for testing.

> Equipment seems to be used a lot longer too, way past the warranty period.
> They only get replaced when they die.  I still see the older Dells, the ones
> with the little flip-out panel on the front with the USB ports behind it.
> New Dells are easy to spot, the keyboards have an actual volume control knob
> (USB hub too!  Nice!  Get one!), the older ones don't.  Win7 will need new
> PCs, so that's a bit ask for a large corporation.

We are a new shop here (set up in 2006) in Singapore, so no old PCs
(except a few very old one for EMC equipment). But I know there were
many old equipment with our US counterpart. Equipment is ok as long
as you get the calibration service (could be expensive). Old PCs are
worth less. So it does not make too much sense to maintain old PCs
(unless for old applications which need DOS/Win3.1/Win95/Win98).
Basically if you throw away a Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 out there, not
many people will pick it up here...

> To be honest, if the machine can run a browser, then it's good enough.  For
> corporations, they're all moving to web apps.  I can hear the mainframe boys
> chuckling in the background...
>
> A web app doesn't help the original poster, of course, many on this list
> will be in the same boat.
>

The web apps need a lot of memory to run actually, worse than their
older counterpart. I knew this. Before moving to MOVEX web apps
last time, I could use a Pentium 1 to access the corporate MOVEX
ERP on IBM AS400 using terminal interface. After moving the web
apps, a Pentium 3 was slow to access the same data through
the web. That was in the previous job. In the current job, we are
moving to SAP and it certainly needs more resources than
the old applications. In a way, it is very nice not to use many
disparate apps, but it certainly needs better PCs.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@150908 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

> I am not so sure about this. Typically Corporations (especially medium
> to big ones) will have certain upgrade cycle for the PCs, say 3 years
> or at most 5 years. 3 years are because typically HP/Dell/etc offer
> 3-year warranties. And the last support year for XP is 2014. So
> maybe for small shops, XP will still around (DOS and 98SE are
> around as well now), but most of the corporations will not use
> XP after 2014.
>

I wish. The official build date on my work PC is August 2004, and the date
of the software install would suggest it's even older than that. Wasn't
exactly state of the art at the time either. Given the timescale involved in
updating stuff at our place, if we haven't heard about it already there's no
way we'll see new computers this year. If we did get new computers now I
should be extremely surprised if they came with Vista rather than XP (we
still have IE6!), so extrapolate forwards our PC upgrade cycle and work out
when we're still likely to be using XP. Oh, and I suspect you'd probably
class us as big rather than medium - we're an FTSE250 company.

Chris

2009\05\31@153036 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Tony Smith wrote:
>>     So maybe I'm just dealing with a bunch of end users that don't have
>> .NET installed and I really need to learn to integrate the installation
>> of it if necessary into my setup package (I'm using Ghost Installer
>> which gives me the option to install a .NET package, but makes my
>> setup.exe huge - didn't realize till now that there is a distribution
>> package bundled with Visual Studio).  The other package that I seem to
>> need to install sometimes is vcredist_x86.exe, and I'm not sure what the
>> dependency is there.  I suppose I'll take a look at C# (sometimes I
>> really miss Turbo Pascal) since I have it as part of Visual Studio and
>> try to muddle through the .NET/redist_x86.exe install issues for now.
>
>
> There really isn't a lot of .Net apps out there at the moment, so no-one
> in
> user land installs it.  Much .Net is done server side, so the client
> (browser) doesn't care.

FWIW, most of our computers at work have .NET, at least the 2.0 version,
because the apps we use require it. Oh, and we're running Windows XP SP3 on
all workstations (some machines had to be reverted to XP from Vista).

Installing .NET on machines that don't have it is trivial, even for the very
non-technical users.

Vitaliy

2009\05\31@155014 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Tony Smith <RemoveMEajsmithspam_OUTspamKILLspambeagle.com.au> wrote:
>
> Equipment seems to be used a lot longer too, way past the warranty period.
> They only get replaced when they die.  I still see the older Dells, the
> ones
> with the little flip-out panel on the front with the USB ports behind it.


Yep, that's what we have!

2009\05\31@180402 by Youda He

flavicon
face
We build and distribute software for people with all type of Windows OS,
from NT to Vista, we need to keep all builds working, and is moving the app
to Linux.  The problems we having with VC2008 is so bad, we end up giving up
the build (that's different story).  We still using VC2003, that's the last
version you can build and distribute easily.

We don't use MFC, the GUI is build on top of wxWidgets, I hope we were
picking QT earlier on, but it is too late now.  Anyway, wxWidgets allows us
to move to different OS, such as Linux from windows easier.

We build our application using XP, but runs on Vista, etc.  We can't even
install VC2003 on Vista, so we can only run the compiled binary, not the
compiler.

Anyone has used Intel C/C++ compilers? Would like to know, we need to add
Multi Processor support and better optimizations for our app. We could
prefer using one compiler for all platforms so we can get better handle of
the optimizations.

-- Youda

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Chris McSweeny <RemoveMEcpmcsweenyTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Tony Smith <EraseMEajsmithspamspamspamBeGonebeagle.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Equipment seems to be used a lot longer too, way past the warranty
> period.
> > They only get replaced when they die.  I still see the older Dells, the
> > ones
> > with the little flip-out panel on the front with the USB ports behind it.
>
>
> Yep, that's what we have!
> -

2009\05\31@182510 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Youda He <RemoveMEyoudaKILLspamspamgeometrysystems.com>wrote:

> Anyone has used Intel C/C++ compilers? Would like to know, we need to add
> Multi Processor support and better optimizations for our app. We could
> prefer using one compiler for all platforms so we can get better handle of
> the optimizations.
>

You can try gcc / mingw for window apps, but last time I was checking gcc
vs. VC++ I realised Microsoft made a much better job on the compiler side.

All we could do id to use our propriatery macro set and library for multi
threaded development so that we could compile the same code for every
platform (Win/VC++, Linux/gcc, on AIX an Intel compiler but then moved to
gcc and on Novell NetWare it was Watcom as far as I remember).

I am not sure what type of optimizations you want to make, but if that is
anything with the C code efficiency then I would suggest to keep using MS
VC++ -- on Linux you are pretty much stuck on gcc though.

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\05\31@182856 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Youda He <youdaSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgeometrysystems.com>wrote:

>  We can't even
> install VC2003 on Vista, so we can only run the compiled binary, not the
> compiler.
>

Really? I'm running VC++ 6.0 on Vista. It's not supposed to work, but it
does. Granted I've only tried compiling fairly simple stuff, but even so
I've yet to actually find an issue!

Chris

2009\05\31@185301 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Chris McSweeny <spamBeGonecpmcsweenySTOPspamspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Youda He <KILLspamyoudaspamBeGonespamgeometrysystems.com>wrote:
>
>>  We can't even
>> install VC2003 on Vista, so we can only run the compiled binary, not the
>> compiler.
>>
>
> Really? I'm running VC++ 6.0 on Vista. It's not supposed to work, but it
> does. Granted I've only tried compiling fairly simple stuff, but even so
> I've yet to actually find an issue!

It is true you can probably install VC++ 2003 on Vista but there are
major problems like debugging. Not so sure about VC++ 6.
http://www.techtalkz.com/vc-net/302166-how-speed-up-visual-studio-2003-vista.html

Even installing .Net 1.1 is troublesome in Vista.
http://mcuee.blogspot.com/2009/04/microsoft-net-framework-11-installation.html

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@185609 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Chris McSweeny <EraseMEcpmcsweenyspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

> If we did get new computers now I
> should be extremely surprised if they came with Vista rather than XP (we
> still have IE6!).

Same here. No IE 7, no Windows XP SP 3. Still XP SP2.
I work for a Fortune 500 company.

> so extrapolate forwards our PC upgrade cycle and work out
> when we're still likely to be using XP. Oh, and I suspect you'd probably
> class us as big rather than medium - we're an FTSE250 company.

Vista is an exception and XP is too good compared to Vista
to let go. But things will change with Windows 7 coming soon.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@191146 by Funny NYPD

picon face
That's why Vista will be the history very soon.

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com




________________________________
From: Xiaofan Chen <@spam@xiaofanc@spam@spamspam_OUTgmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <spamBeGonepiclistspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:52:58 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Windows Development Choices

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Chris McSweeny <.....cpmcsweenyspam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

It is true you can probably install VC++ 2003 on Vista but there are
major problems like debugging. Not so sure about VC++ 6.
http://www.techtalkz.com/vc-net/302166-how-speed-up-visual-studio-2003-vista.html

Even installing .Net 1.1 is troublesome in Vista.
http://mcuee.blogspot.com/2009/04/microsoft-net-framework-11-installation.html

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@192011 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Funny NYPD <TakeThisOuTfunnynypdKILLspamspamspamyahoo.com> wrote:
> That's why Vista will be the history very soon.

Not for me. ;-)
I am using a Vista 32 desktop now and I think
it is fine. There are older programs which do not work,
so I just move on. Most the MCU companies now
support Vista 32.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@192725 by Youda He

flavicon
face
We tried install VC2003 in Vista, the problems is with VC2003, Vista does
not add any value, only trouble.

VC2008 has some optimization, like open mp support, more CPU specific
optimization (all in floating point operations), and SSE supports.

We want to optimize the code to have faster floating point operations,
possibly using SSE, and definitely multiprocessor support, since the
dual/quad core cpus are everywhere.

-- Youda

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancspamRemoveMEgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\05\31@194011 by Funny NYPD

picon face
We have one machine came in with a Vista pro pre-installed. We found it was hard to use, and downgrade to XP SP2/3 and never touched a Vista again.
Agree, the vista eye-catching style is really cool.

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com




________________________________
From: Xiaofan Chen <TakeThisOuTxiaofancspamspamgmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclistEraseMEspammit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:20:10 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Windows Development Choices

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Funny NYPD <RemoveMEfunnynypdEraseMEspamspam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> That's why Vista will be the history very soon.

Not for me. ;-)
I am using a Vista 32 desktop now and I think
it is fine. There are older programs which do not work,
so I just move on. Most the MCU companies now
support Vista 32.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@195321 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Funny NYPD <@spam@funnynypdRemoveMEspamEraseMEyahoo.com> wrote:
> We have one machine came in with a Vista pro pre-installed. We found it
> was hard to use, and downgrade to XP SP2/3 and never touched a Vista again.

Probably. Vista has many things gone wrong but the underline technology
is actually quite good. Windows 7 shares the same technology and tries
to address the issues and it seems that it will regain the interests
of the business users.

> Agree, the vista eye-catching style is really cool.

I do not care for the eye-catching features. In fact, KDE 4.2 under Linux
is even more eye-catching but I have not used it for a short while, still feel
the plain Gnome is faster and more stable. ;-)

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\05\31@231055 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On May 31, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> That's why Vista will be the history very soon.
>
> Not for me. ;-)
> I am using a Vista 32 desktop now and I think
> it is fine. There are older programs which do not work,
> so I just move on.

With that general attitude, what will stop you from going to Windows 7  
when it comes out ?

BillW

2009\05\31@234427 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:10 AM, William "Chops" Westfield
<EraseMEwestfwspam@spam@mac.com> wrote:
>>> That's why Vista will be the history very soon.
>>
>> Not for me. ;-)
>> I am using a Vista 32 desktop now and I think
>> it is fine. There are older programs which do not work,
>> so I just move on.
>
> With that general attitude, what will stop you from going to Windows 7
> when it comes out ?
>

If I am going to buy my next PC, it will be Windows 7. No technical hurdel
will stop this as I am a "pro" user of Windows. But my wife does have a say
when we will buy the next PC. ;-)

I always like to be current with Windows and Linux. I always use the
latest Ubuntu as my primary Linux distro.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com


'[OT] Windows Development Choices'
2009\06\01@080139 by Gerhard Fiedler
picon face
Youda He wrote:

> We build and distribute software for people with all type of Windows
> OS, from NT to Vista, we need to keep all builds working, and is
> moving the app to Linux.  The problems we having with VC2008 is so
> bad, we end up giving up the build (that's different story).  

Really? What are the problems you are having? I'm working on a fairly
large C++ application that is built with VS2008 and installs without
problems.

Gerhard

2009\06\01@102050 by Peter

picon face
> amazing. For example, I implemented a complete multithreaded TCP/IP server
> in under 100 lines of code! As another example, all of 30 lines of code,
> taking advantage of the regular expression support solved a problem I
> figured would have taken pages of ordinary C code.

With due respect, the Perl version of the multithreaded server is a 5 line
script (a one liner exists but it is not for the faint of heart), and it does
regexps already. Tcl would be about 12 lines (also does regexp). They all run on
win32 (among others). I simply fail to understand why one needs a 200MB
development environment and strange proprietary runtime libraries to achieve a
1980s programming goal (regexps, tcp/ip server) in 2009. Or maybe it's just me
who fails to see the point here.

Peter


2009\06\01@110951 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>     However, now it seems like it's a huge hassle to write anything on
> XP that's compatible with the majority of people I distribute my code to
> since upgrading to Visual C++ 2008.  I wondering what you guys use for
> PC side applications (not Linux - that's a topic I don't want to get
> into at the moment - been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, and still
> don't know what I'm doing).

Python. Loads of libraries available. Not blazingly fast, but fast
enough for nearly anything. Almost instantaneous portability to Linuxes
(and a lot of other OS'es), but USB is still a problem.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\06\01@164426 by Youda He

flavicon
face
May be you can help us to solve the problem.

We installed VS2008 (with SP1), works on developer machines, when build for
release, we usually does the copy of the necessary dlls to release folder,
(works with VS2008 without SP1), but the install always missing dlls,
checked with MS, the SP1 updated some CRT dll, remove the old one, but the
manifest still referenced to the old one, which we don't have anymore.  We
have attempt to modify all of our dlls (about 50~60), and still doesn;t
work, since we also have some third party dll, that we have no control.

Is there any good way to get a handle of the manefest madness?

-- Youda

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Gerhard Fiedler
<@spam@listsspam_OUTspam.....connectionbrazil.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\06\01@191307 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <spamBeGonewouterEraseMEspamvoti.nl> wrote:
> Python. Loads of libraries available. Not blazingly fast, but fast
> enough for nearly anything. Almost instantaneous portability to Linuxes
> (and a lot of other OS'es), but USB is still a problem.
>

Yes python is nice. I can read some python codes as a non-programmer.
pyusb is good if you use libusb ( http://pyusb.berlios.de/ ). I actually
contributed to the early testing of the project. But so far, I have not
yet to see a Python code to talk to an HID device using *native Win32
HID API* after so many years since you asked the question in 2004.
Clearly it can be done but nobody has done it so far.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2004-April/258835.html

I ask the question in 2007 again.
http://www.nabble.com/Python-HID-wrapper-for-Win32-td13329336.html

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\06\02@072508 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen ha scritto:

>>  However, now it seems like it's a huge hassle to write anything on
>> XP that's compatible with the majority of people I distribute my code to
>> since upgrading to Visual C++ 2008.
>
> If you are comfortable with Visual C++ and MFC, you can continue
> using them for Windows development without using .Net. This is what

agreed Xiaofan, same thoughts.

I don't like NET for same reasons posted by others. I use some other 4GL
"environment" for databases etc, and have used them since 1991 - but
it's a different story.

Dario

2009\06\02@072846 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen ha scritto:

> I agree with that as a non-programmer. MFC must suck since I
> could not go along with the steep learning curve and gave up learning
> programming 10 years back partially because of MFC
> and Win32 API. ;-)
>
> On the other hand, even though it has a steep learning curve,
> the programmers I know of think MFC is not bad. It is very powerful
> and there are still so many complexed GUI design using MFC.

Well, I've been using them for some 15 years and found them "good
enough". Low-level enough but still "high level" when needed.
They are quite complicated indeed, but usually you get what you need.

2009\06\02@080622 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Youda He wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Not really sure. I didn't work on the installer part of our application.
(FWIW, they don't use the VS installer.) I have some C# applications
that use the VS installer and it works fine for me, but these are rather
simple apps.

Did you try to recreate the installer from scratch, to get rid of any
junk in the config that you may have?

Gerhard

2009\06\02@110435 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > amazing. For example, I implemented a complete multithreaded TCP/IP
server
> > in under 100 lines of code! As another example, all of 30 lines of code,
> > taking advantage of the regular expression support solved a problem I
> > figured would have taken pages of ordinary C code.
>
> With due respect, the Perl version of the multithreaded server is a 5 line
> script (a one liner exists but it is not for the faint of heart), and it
does
> regexps already. Tcl would be about 12 lines (also does regexp). They all
run on
> win32 (among others). I simply fail to understand why one needs a 200MB
> development environment and strange proprietary runtime libraries to
achieve a
> 1980s programming goal (regexps, tcp/ip server) in 2009. Or maybe it's
just me
> who fails to see the point here.


Perhaps it's due to the number of people who could understand (and/or write)
the 100 line solution versus the 5 line one (or the one liner).

Tony

2009\06\02@113717 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Peter <plpeter2006spamBeGonespamyahoo.com> wrote:

> With due respect, the Perl version of the multithreaded server is a 5 line
> script (a one liner exists but it is not for the faint of heart), and it
> does
> regexps already. Tcl would be about 12 lines (also does regexp). They all
> run on
> win32 (among others).


However, on Windows that ActiveState Perl is pain in the assert :-) I have
loads of different problems in the Win/Perl and the multi threading is just
something I want to avoid all the times.


> I simply fail to understand why one needs a 200MB
> development environment and strange proprietary runtime libraries to
> achieve a
> 1980s programming goal (regexps, tcp/ip server) in 2009. Or maybe it's
> just me
> who fails to see the point here.


The matter of fact as far as I remember in the '80s I had only really simple
environments, no graphical onec for sure and syntax highlight came in
somewhere late '80 only. Also there were no Internet (at least not in
Hungary by that time) and even if you wanted to have a sime menu or an
upper/lower case conversion, you had to write it for yourself.

Now everything is prewritten, you just need to point and click and your
application is there... It is much quicker to develop anything like and for
that 5 line web server you need that 200MB (or maybe even more).

That's another quiestion why don't we have libraries that could have been
used by any development and runtime environments? So we could have reduce
the amount of OCX/DLL/TPU etc from our system32 directories and as you said
the size of the development tools could have been shrank to half easily.
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\06\02@133915 by Marechiare

picon face
> We have attempt to modify all of our dlls (about 50~60),
> and still doesn;t work, since we also have some third
> party dll, that we have no control.
>
> Is there any good way to get a handle of the manefest
> madness?

Interesting article in "MSDN Magazine May 2009":
"Foundations: Versioning Workflows"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/uk-ua/magazine/cc159440(en-us).aspx

2009\06\02@145500 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 07:20 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Funny NYPD <RemoveMEfunnynypd@spam@spamspamBeGoneyahoo.com> wrote:
> > That's why Vista will be the history very soon.
>
> Not for me. ;-)
> I am using a Vista 32 desktop now and I think
> it is fine. There are older programs which do not work,
> so I just move on. Most the MCU companies now
> support Vista 32.

AFAIK where I work is still pretty much just XP. There are some that use
Vista, many since they develop for Vista, but there are still a ton of
laptops I see with a Vista sticker running XP.

The plain fact is Vista is perceived (whether fair or not) as not
offering anything above XP to make it worth switching for. In fact, many
believe Vista offers LESS then XP on a machine.

My experience with Vista is restricted to only two machines. The first
was a lower speed dual core (E2140) from Dell running Home Basic. It's
performance was abysmal, due to it only having 1GB of memory. Dell
should never had let that machine out the door. It was wiped and runs
Ubuntu to this day.

The second machine is my HTPC which has a pretty modern dual core CPU.
While the performance is acceptable, it's still slower then XP would be
on it. I only use Vista Media Center on it, and actually have it boot
directly into VMC, so I don't even "see" Vista. As long as I stay in the
sandbox of VMC the machine is great (after waiting a few minutes for the
boot processes to finish), has it's odd hangs (usually just VMC,
sometimes worse), but it's tolerable, and actually more stable then the
PVR it replaced.

Anything OUTSIDE of VMC is a nightmare though, aside from the normal
annoyances (slow file sharing, machine deciding to forget it has an
ethernet port, really non intuitive interface), installing a video card
took hours (drivers refusing to load, things like that), installing the
PCIE capture card never worked, the USB one I use is running a beta
patch to fix a sync issue in VMC and still stutters from time to time.

We'll see what Win7 is like, news so far is good.

TTYL

2009\06\02@155604 by Youda He

flavicon
face
It appears my computer is really up to date, with latest security update, I
can't open the  file in the link.

-- Youda

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Marechiare <.....marechiare@spam@spamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\06\03@005107 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Youda He wrote:
> It appears my computer is really up to date, with latest security update,
> I
> can't open the  file in the link.
>
> -- Youda


Use The Force. ;)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/uk-ua/magazine/cc159440(en-us).aspx

2009\06\03@055147 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Herbert Graf <.....hkgrafRemoveMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 07:20 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> I am using a Vista 32 desktop now and I think
>> it is fine. There are older programs which do not work,
>> so I just move on. Most the MCU companies now
>> support Vista 32.

Just take note this is at home.

> AFAIK where I work is still pretty much just XP. There are some that use
> Vista, many since they develop for Vista, but there are still a ton of
> laptops I see with a Vista sticker running XP.

At work we still use XP SP2, SP3 and IE7 are not supported. There are a
few Vista machines for the software guys (testing). And we
still use Office XP at work. Some of the guys are moving to Office
2007. And I think there are a few very old Windows 95 machine for
some Surge/Burst EMC testing machines.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...