• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VS6 vs VS.NET 2003

This topic is 5031 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Which one is better, Visual Studio 6 or Visual Studio .NET 2003? I wanna know which is better for programming games in 2D with DirectX, also which version of DX is best for 2D Game programming, and easiest, Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
IMO, Visual Studio .NET 2003 is better than MSVC 6 hands down. MSVC 6 has a poorer optimizing compiler, accepts a much smaller subset of the C++ language, and contains a implementation of the standard library that is fundamentally broken in several places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as which is "better" for any particular task, the answer is always .Net. It is simply superior in every way vs. 6.0.

Also, it''s nice to have one integrated IDE for all programming languages (i even found a plugin for php), rather than relying on seperate IDEs for different languages (ala VS6.0).

Don''t forget that if you''re a student (or happen to know one...), you can get the complete professional edition (or whatever the level just below the top is called these days), sans support incidents, for about $50 (or less) from your university book store (at least this is the case with U.S. universities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you''re really cheap, Microsoft released the Visual C++ Tool Kit. It''s the same compiler you get with VS.NET, but free and without the IDE. This with the SDK is pretty much all you need. Not always pretty though.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/

Though, I can only confess to writing some smaller tools and administration programs for Windows. I generally don''t write programs for Windows if I can help it, so I find the VS.NET IDE more restrictive than helpful (not having spent enough time to be proficient with it).

Still, looks impressive.

Int.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People dislike VS.NET because they are so attached to the VS6 interface. The fact of the matter is that VS.NET is an increadable IDE that demolishes VS6 on nearly every account.

Still, I would like to see VS.NET gain some more advanaced features such as built in refactoring andcode reporting (not that VS6 supports that out of the box either). I feel like sometimes Microsoft doesn''t take their products all the way to being all encompassing in order to support the third party corperations (whether its out of the goodness of their hearts, for the best of the community, or to keep the SEC at bay).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, VS6 runs on pre-2000 editions of Windows. (this only pertains to the IDE itself. binaries made with VS.NET run just fine on win9x)

I can''t think of any other reason to prefer it, though. (cost maybe)

"Without deviation, progress itself is impossible." -- Frank Zappa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the VS 6.0 IDE better, although I prefer the VC++ 2003 .NET compiler. One of the things that bug me in VS .NET is the over complicated IDE and its inability to export/preserve custom IDE settings. See this thread for example:
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=223740

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.net 2003 is technically better because it''s like a lot newer. I remeber getting vs6 with my copy of nt4 workstation and that was like 1997!
I have both versions and talk about bloatware .net2003 take forever to load up even on a fast p4@3ghz not to mention even on a large 20'' monitor it feels cramped cuz it has so many windows!
But seriously 1 thing that VS6 is still better than .net 2002 or visual studio 2003 is the install time! I''ve never been able to install 2003 under like an hour no matter how fast your computer whereas with VS6 you can install it in under 10min. That''s my biggest gripe with VS 2003 installation time!


If God played dice, He''d win.
—Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VS.NET 2003 starts in few seconds on my athlon 1ghz.
And you can customize the IDE as much as you like so complaning over how much windows there are is pointless, and there is always full-screen mode.

-----------------
SloGameDev.net :: Slovenian Game Developers network

Q:What does a derived class in C# tell to it''s parent?
A:All your base are belong to us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by CWIZO
VS.NET 2003 starts in few seconds on my athlon 1ghz.
And you can customize the IDE as much as you like so complaning over how much windows there are is pointless, and there is always full-screen mode.

-----------------
SloGameDev.net :: Slovenian Game Developers network

Q:What does a derived class in C# tell to it's parent?
A:All your base are belong to us!


Ok I admit VS.NET 2003 starts up faster than the 2002 version and I know there are tweaks you can make further to speed it up but it's still not as fast as 6!
Microsoft even has a KB article on this:
INFO: Optimize the Launch of the Visual Studio .NET IDE


[edited by - daveangel on May 8, 2004 10:06:13 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by daveangel
quote:
Original post by CWIZO
VS.NET 2003 starts in few seconds on my athlon 1ghz.
And you can customize the IDE as much as you like so complaning over how much windows there are is pointless, and there is always full-screen mode.

-----------------
SloGameDev.net :: Slovenian Game Developers network

Q:What does a derived class in C# tell to it's parent?
A:All your base are belong to us!


Ok I admit VS.NET 2003 starts up faster than the 2002 version and I know there are tweaks you can make further to speed it up but it's still not as fast as 6!
Microsoft even has a KB article on this:




A: you dont know how to use html, B. please close the tag right and fix the forum

EDIT: now my quote tag points to a broken link... at microsoft, moderator, someone?

[edited by - DerAngeD on May 8, 2004 8:02:21 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
VC6.0 IDE is a great, simple IDE, but VC.NET2003 is a great compiler, anyone knows if its possible to use VC.NET2k3 compiler (vctoolkit2003) with VC6.0 IDE ? I mean, substitute the vs6 compiler by the .net2k3, only the c/c++ compiler, not .net,c# and other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, for me, there''s only ONE thing that really bugs me about vc2003: you have to distribute msvcr71.dll with your application, ''cause it''s not included anywhere. Opposed to VC6 that generates applications which requires the original msvcrt.dll which is present on almost every computer out there, if not all, from win95 up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MSVC .NET 2003 is just an upgraded version of MSVC 6.0. So its pretty obvious that the upgraded version is going to be better or they wouldn''t have bothered doing it in the first place (Ok so thats not entirely true for all cases, e.g. winamp but in most cases thats a fair assumption).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by persil
Now, for me, there''s only ONE thing that really bugs me about vc2003: you have to distribute msvcr71.dll with your application, ''cause it''s not included anywhere. Opposed to VC6 that generates applications which requires the original msvcrt.dll which is present on almost every computer out there, if not all, from win95 up.

yeah that bugs me even more than the other problems I mentioned cuz it makes it difficult to send people anything smaller than 10megs cuz that''s how much the runtime distributables take up. Not to mention that they may not have administrative rights to install the .net framework even if you did include it. Microsoft really need to include it in the next XP service pack instead of waiting for longhorn to integrate .net into windows if they want more people to use it.
That what''s so cool with VC6 I can write my cool little Opengl programs and I just send the .exe and even a person running NT4 can run it without problems and it just works!




If God played dice, He''d win.
—Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by daveangel
quote:
Original post by persil
Now, for me, there''s only ONE thing that really bugs me about vc2003: you have to distribute msvcr71.dll with your application, ''cause it''s not included anywhere. Opposed to VC6 that generates applications which requires the original msvcrt.dll which is present on almost every computer out there, if not all, from win95 up.

yeah that bugs me even more than the other problems I mentioned cuz it makes it difficult to send people anything smaller than 10megs cuz that''s how much the runtime distributables take up. Not to mention that they may not have administrative rights to install the .net framework even if you did include it. Microsoft really need to include it in the next XP service pack instead of waiting for longhorn to integrate .net into windows if they want more people to use it.


msvcr71.dll has *NOTHING* to do with the .NET Framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Arild Fines
quote:
Original post by daveangel
quote:
Original post by persil
Now, for me, there''s only ONE thing that really bugs me about vc2003: you have to distribute msvcr71.dll with your application, ''cause it''s not included anywhere. Opposed to VC6 that generates applications which requires the original msvcrt.dll which is present on almost every computer out there, if not all, from win95 up.

yeah that bugs me even more than the other problems I mentioned cuz it makes it difficult to send people anything smaller than 10megs cuz that''s how much the runtime distributables take up. Not to mention that they may not have administrative rights to install the .net framework even if you did include it. Microsoft really need to include it in the next XP service pack instead of waiting for longhorn to integrate .net into windows if they want more people to use it.


msvcr71.dll has *NOTHING* to do with the .NET Framework.




doesn''t it matter if i call the distributable vb runtime vb6?.dll or vb5*.dll you still got to include it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Refactoring is meant to be in 2005 version, saw that on the MS site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by daveangel
doesn''t it matter if i call the distributable vb runtime vb6?.dll or vb5*.dll you still got to include it!


msvcr71.dll is ~400 KB, nowhere near the ~20 megs of the .NET framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for me, i think .net is better than VS6,
personally, i'll start using .net with the 2005 release.
for three simple reasons:
(1) this is the most important one:
NO EDIT AND CONTINUE !!! i cannot live without it !
(2) you have to save before compiling,
i hate that much, well, VC++6 will also require
saving, too bad, i love VB6's way.
(wish microsoft will let vb compile the old way,
could anyone tell em ???! its furstrating
when all u want is modify and then decide you dont
want to save it, but sadly u compiled )
(3) more bugs will be eliminated.

[edited by - zaidgs on May 12, 2004 2:49:07 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I noticed that everyone is answering the VS6 vs VS.net 2k3 question (and I agree with the general opinion that vs.net 2k3 is better than VS 6), but the best version of DX for 2D question has yet to be answered (unless I missed it).

Any recent version of the DX SDK (ie, 8 or 9) will run (and I believe compile, because the interfaces haven''t changed since DX7 for DD) DirectDraw7 stuff, but make sure that you have the DX7 SDK documentation, because MS dropped DirectDraw documentation from the SDK at DX8, iirc. Find yourself a copy of the DX7 SDK documentation, though getting the whole SDK is suggested (becaues it includes code samples for DirectDraw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Arild Fines
quote:
Original post by daveangel
doesn''t it matter if i call the distributable vb runtime vb6?.dll or vb5*.dll you still got to include it!


msvcr71.dll is ~400 KB, nowhere near the ~20 megs of the .NET framework.


Last time I checked the .NET framework must be installed on a client machine before any .NET app that makes use of .net features will run!
You are assuming that C++ programmers will not use any managed c++ and not use any features of the .net framework for your assumption above to work!
The .NET Framework adds more that 20MB to your application download. How many users are you losing because of the extra 1-3 hours of modem download time?
Thinstall creates a stand-alone application that runs without the .NET Framework in as small as 2.7MB for a simple Hello World, and ~6MB for a typical GUI application.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were complaining about msvcr71.dll. That DLL has nothing to do with the .NET Framework. If you build non-.NET apps in VC++(which a *LOT* of people actually do, despite your claims), the client doesn''t need the .NET Framework at all to run your apps.

Is this clear now? Or do we really need to take yet *another* round on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Arild Fines
You were complaining about msvcr71.dll. That DLL has nothing to do with the .NET Framework. If you build non-.NET apps in VC++(which a *LOT* of people actually do, despite your claims), the client doesn''t need the .NET Framework at all to run your apps.

Is this clear now? Or do we really need to take yet *another* round on this?

If you reread thread you will see I never complained about msvcr71.dll directly. My main point has always been the ridiculously large size for the .net redistributables. If you want to upgrade to using VS 2002 or 2003 and not make use of .net then I''d have to question why you even bothered upgrading?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by daveangel
If you want to upgrade to using VS 2002 or 2003 and not make use of .net then I''d have to question why you even bothered upgrading?


I don''t know, little things like not having a compiler that spits out a C1001 everytime you do something more complicated with templates than a std::vector? A better optimizing compiler? A standard library implementation that isn''t broken in a dozen different ways? Covariant return types?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement