Board index » cppbuilder » Re: The wisper info.

Re: The wisper info.


2004-09-22 01:27:12 PM
cppbuilder83
Boian Mitov < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
No. VC++ and the Numega DriverWorks thingy ;-) . We have switched to
DriverX since. The last driver I did was a 2000 WDM .
Ok, just checking. I thought I'd have to write a USB driver several
months ago, but Cypress came through w/a new driver just in the nick of
time. Actually, I was hoping you were about to tell me how to write a
Kernel-mode driver in BCB<g>.
 
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

Point taken.
--
Mark Jacobs
"Leroy Casterline" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| But rolling BCB into BDS makes BCB stronger for a number of
| reasons previously mentioned. And I *do* care about a strong BCB.
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

Absolutely. OS's should keep their noses out, and let the apps do the work!
--
Mark Jacobs
"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| Nothing's more annoying than those pesky "operating systems" that
| insist on being between you and your hardware, eh? :)
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: The wisper info.

In assembler, yes.
--
Mark Jacobs
"Brion L. Webster" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| Another question springs to mind - under the NT Kernel,
| do you regularly bypass the HAL and somehow magically write
| straight to the hardware?
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

When .net is ubiquitous, neither me nor my customers will want to use it, if
what we've got runs faster, and doesn't insist on a>100MB framework to run in.
When we are forced to adopt .net, then I'll think about it. Not until then,
though.
--
Mark Jacobs
"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| If Borland fails to capture .net market share now, there won't be any
| market share left when .net is ubiquitous.
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

Absolutely. Think of it in these terms - we only have to change when Win32 is no
longer supported. That could be a long way off. In the meantime, watch as these
lemmings hurl themselves over yet another Microsoft bandwagon cliff. With BCB5
Pro SP1, what can't I do that I could with .net - answer, nothing at all!
--
Mark Jacobs
"Doug Samuel" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| So I don't know if Borland is the company with the managers who are
| "idiots who prefer buzzwords" or if they are throwing "technical
| correctness" to the wind in order to take advantage of what often seems
| to be a blind adoptation of .net. In either case, the situation stinks
| and not only is my favorite development tool going down the tubes, I
| have to sit here and feel like one of the few voices in the wilderness
| asking "Why .net?". I don't think I will ever see any kind of tradeoff
| analysis comparing .net to win32.
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

"Mark Jacobs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Why can't Borland just fortify their current offerings, so that there are no
more bugs, before going forward to adopt technologies that most PCs are not
equipped to deal with currently
Answer:-
Because they are idiots who prefer buzzwords, instead of tight, fast, and
bug-free code that talks to the processor in assembler.
No, becasue the are shortsighted idiots who are focused on this quarters
profits
Quote
(ie. do not run the .Net framework, which most
dial-up modem users would balk at downloading)?
I do not know any dialup users anymore.
All my friends and aquaintances have moved to ADSL or cable.
I guess that in the very poor parts of rural australia ,
dial up must still be common.
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

In airport terminals globally, train stations and other public internet access
sites, they still use attrocious modem baud rates.
Keep your apps slim with .Netless BCB and VCL. Or use plain old Delphi (language
is {*word*99} though).
--
Mark Jacobs
"I R T" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| I do not know any dialup users anymore.
| All my friends and aquaintances have moved to ADSL or cable.
|
| I guess that in the very poor parts of rural australia ,
| dial up must still be common.
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
Absolutely. Think of it in these terms - we only have to change when
Win32 is no longer supported. That could be a long way off. In the
meantime, watch as these lemmings hurl themselves over yet another
Microsoft bandwagon cliff. With BCB5 Pro SP1, what can't I do that I
could with .net - answer, nothing at all! --
Mark Jacobs
Think of it as the move from DOS to Win16.
They co-existed for a while, but Win32 is really where you wanted to
get to. In the early days, DOS apps would happily sell alongside
Win16, especially as Win3.0 was not ubiquitous. Eventually though,
Win16 took over (despite a healthy 'legacy' market, some folks still
make a living from DOS today!) and evolution to Win32 was possible.
I think .NET is in the Windows 2 era, and the next framework may move
us forwards.
Avalon/Indigo are now coming to .NET in general, that would be the
Win3.1 equivalent.
Eventually LongHorn will be Win32 exposed through LongHorn services,
this will probably be the Win95 equivalent. DOs/Win have changed
priviledges, but you still are not yet at the end goal (NT) I'm still
not sure where in the MS roadmap the equivalent of NT4/Win2K would be.
I;m still not sure what .NET brings to the end user (which is what
drove Win16) but I sure can see the advantages of a secure, object
oriented OS with full reflection! .NET has a clear future, it's just
the timing I'm not sure about.
[No, we're not using today either]
AlisdairM
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

But Longhorn has been cited as at least 2 years off, and that's the initial
release. Hence, I can see no reason why there is this rush to get .Net apps up
and running *NOW*. Usually, developers wait for an OS release, before they
start developing apps for it! For all we know, the .Net initiative could turn
out to be Vapourware in 10 years time.
And my main question still remains, "What can I *NOT* program now in BCB Pro 5
SP1 VCL Win32, that I can with .Net, that is so vital?". Remember, this
question has nothing to do with ease-of-programming issues.
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
markj atty critical dotty co dotty uk
"Alisdair Meredith (TeamB)"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| I;m still not sure what .NET brings to the end user (which is what
| drove Win16) but I sure can see the advantages of a secure, object
| oriented OS with full reflection! .NET has a clear future, it's just
| the timing I'm not sure about.
| [No, we're not using today either]
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

"I R T" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
"Mark Jacobs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:

>(ie. do not run the .Net framework, which most
>dial-up modem users would balk at downloading)?

I do not know any dialup users anymore.
All my friends and aquaintances have moved to ADSL or cable.

I guess that in the very poor parts of rural australia ,
dial up must still be common.
Or rural Canada -- like me 8=( In fact, the best speed I can get on my 58K
modem from home is 26K due to the phone line characteristics. What is
frustrating is that the cable company's line ends about 1km from my
driveway. Oh well, I hope that the wireless offerings will soon be able to
get to me down in the valley without costing me an arm and a leg.
Ciao
Bill
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
In assembler, yes.
Where's the TAssembler component again? I can't seem to find what
to click on...
-Brion
(just kidding!!!! <g>)
 

Re:Re: The wisper info.

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
Absolutely. Think of it in these terms - we only have to change when Win32 is no
longer supported. That could be a long way off. In the meantime, watch as these
lemmings hurl themselves over yet another Microsoft bandwagon cliff. With BCB5
Pro SP1, what can't I do that I could with .net - answer, nothing at all!
Probably nothing yet, but there's a good chance that MS will introduce
new controls, such as the fancy tree view in Outlook 2003, and a lot of
advanced API functions, which will most likely not be available from
Win32. Just think about the shell tree view and list view, or the Active
Directory API. There are already some features not available from the
plain old Win32 API, you already have to use COM. COM is of course going
to be replaced by .NET. I just want to point out that new OS features
may not be available from the Win32 API in the future. Only time will tell.
Tom