🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4flmu1$3498@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
stevez1@ibm.net (Steven R. Zuch) wrote:
>>So, when you distribute your app two years from now, you'll most likely
>>include those OCXs anyway, because the oldtimers who run NT 3.51 (because
>>they never adapted to the Win95 UI) still haven't caught on...
>
>They better get use to the Win95 UI, because, based on what I read,  
>MS plans to adopt it for the next version of Windows NT.

Yes, that's true, but... NT 3.51 is a full grown usable product. Some
people will hesitate before they upgrade, and may not even need to...

One year after 3.51 shipped, there are still people using 3.5 which is
totally uncapable of running apps using NT 3.51 and Win95's new custom
controls...

>>>this area.  MS has been incorporating disk defragmenters,
>>>backup software, compression, desktop file managers,
>>>fax software, etc ... into Windows, regardless how the
>>>developers felt.
>
>>No. They licensed disk defragmenter from Symantec and the backup software
>>from Central Point (or Arcada?). These are stripped down versions of the
>>full package, so the customer is encouraged to buy the whole package...
>
>How about the other items mentioned above.  Yup, they license some,

I'm not sure who developed the fax software e.g.. I do know it's not a
completed product, since there is no trace of bundled fax support with
NT... :-(

>The point is that Gates loves Basic.  In 1975, he and Paul Allen wrote
>a version of BASIC that ran on the MITS Altair 8800 Computer.  They

Yes, I know MS' history, but I fail to see how Gates can "love" BASIC,
after all, he developed that BASIC in a different language (machine
code?)! VB isn't remotely MS at all, it was aquired from another company (?).

Once they develop VB in VB, I'll take them seriously.

>Suite.  Next, IMHO, it will be bundled again, as part of the operating
>system.  And even if they do not bundled all the OCXs and DLLs for VB 
>in the near future, it will end up on a lot of PCs.  How many PCs have
>VBRUN300 on it.

And how many have legacy VBRUN100 and 200 on them? I don't know, the
only thing I'm aware of is that I've removed that crap from my disk a
long time ago. In any case, that big hunk of DLL doesn't exactly help
your app load fast?

As I mentioned, those files (in combination with VBXs and OCXs) are the
network administrator's nightmare.

>So, regardless of what Delphi does, or does not do, how fast it is,
>how small it's exe's are, VB will be around for a long time.  It is,
>and will continue to be a major developers tool in the Windows 
>environment.

But it shouldn't be. Delphi can be used for 100% of your Windows development
needs. VB can't match that. As you said yourself, apps such as backup
software, defragmenters, fax software and stuff like that, isn't what
VB was meant for... 

>So, to the question, "Should I dump Visual Basic", I would so
>no. It is just to important to MS, and MS is too big to be ignored.

You can't be fired for choosing MS, right.

I don't really care much about the "evil" MS debate. I prefer Windows NT
as my OS and want to use the best development tool available to make
apps for it. This happens to be Delphi.

MS haven't got anything in their arsenal that can match
Delphi's speed [speed of development, compilation and the finished product],
ease of use [just as good as VB on simple things, better when doing more
             advanced stuff]
and ease of maintanence [OOP provides better code reuse and incapsulation].

I've used VB3 for about a year, I also installed VB4 Enterprise and glanced
at it's features, and there was nothing that impressed me when compared
to Delphi. The data controls are still lumping around, the interface designer
is still a dog, it's still difficult to organise custom controls and the
only truly new thing was colored toolbarbuttons. :-)

When you choose a product based on the brand and not on it's merits, then
I would call you a fool. I guess that 85% of the world's population fall
into that category, but when you are trying to make money using that
tool, then you should take a closer look.


--
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/