Archived

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

Windows ME and Newer Programmers

This topic is 6024 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

I started learning C/C++ for DOS console applications as did just about everyone here(as a starting point for C++ or C). I know Windows 98 does not require DOS but comes with it -- and I think DOS actually loads Windows 98. But what happens when 98 is obsolete and everything is Windows ME+? Will new programmers be forced to learn how to program in Windows from the start? Thats kind of overwhelming don't you think? Maybe Microsoft should have thought of that before getting rid of DOS.(which I still love) But a simple solution to this problem is having some sort of console or command line application to simulate DOS so that new programmers can still write older(DOS) C/C++ console apps. That was my 2 cents. P.S. Why cant Microsoft make a SIMPLE internet broswer on their OWN operating system that doesn't FREEZE!!!! ---Seriously. "Ogun's Laughter Is No Joke!!!" - Ogun Kills On The Right, A Nigerian Poem. Edited by - EbonySeraph on June 13, 2001 1:19:45 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WinME runs DOS apps fine. It has a DOS emulator built in so when you run a straight DOS program and use BIOS routines it emulates them. Win2000 runs them too. And if you want, MSVC++ has the option to build a console app. It needs windows to run though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is ever taught using DOS, we are all taught on linux/unix boxes. The only people who learn dos are ones who teach themselves it on their own time with books. Also, My college University of Minnesota doesnt have 1 single course that would ever teac anything on windows, its so anti-microsoft it makes me sick. You graduate with a bachelors or even masters from here in computer science with out ever touching MS Windows, which is just sad.

Possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is ever taught using DOS, we are all taught on linux/unix boxes. The only people who learn dos are ones who teach themselves it on their own time with books. Also, My college University of Minnesota doesnt have 1 single course that would ever teac anything on windows, its so anti-microsoft it makes me sick. You graduate with a bachelors or even masters from here in computer science with out ever touching MS Windows, which is just sad.

Possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Linux boxes are the future. People might as well learn them, cuz even if linux isn''t popular on some systems, it uses a standard POSIX api.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linux is not the future and never will be, unfortunately. Thus it is needed to know how to program in windows, and thus should be taught with a higher priority then anyother operating system. Most programs are writting on windows for windows.

Possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you''re good at programming you can teach yourself the Win32 API pretty easily, in a short period of time. Learning to research and solving problems logically are the only hard parts to progamming. After that, you should be able to figure things out yourself. If they don''t teach you the Win32 API, learn it yourself.

On a slightly seperate note: there is a huge market for Linux. Even if you don''t use it at home, large corporations need programmers to edit and create applications for their servers and networks. I spoke to an NEC employee a while back; they''ll hire anyone with experience with Linux, because people who do have experience with it are hard to find.

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Programming classes at my high school use VB.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH NO PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCE HAS GIVEN UP ON PROGRAMMING AFTER TAKING THOSE CLASSES.

Basically they ruin programming for everyone.

Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) People do learn programming on DOS. I learned to program BASIC in DOS when I was in high school. My first computer science course was 80386 assembler in DOS. I made a cool waving flag using ANSI text/color in assembler. lol

2) most DOS programs will run on any Windows system. Even XP.

3) In my humble opinion Linux IS the future
Microsoft is still the most widely used OS in the consumer market but Linux is catching up fast. And it is being used way beyond just PCs. I have a wristwatch with Linux running on it!! Try doing that with Windows. lol.

It is only a matter of time before they make a GNUBox or some type of Linux game console with Open-Source games and such It probably won''t cost $500 when it is released either. Seeing as how kids (i.e. no job) are the ones playing the console games, I''m sure a cheap high-quality game console with free downloadable games in addition to cheaper commercial games will go over real nicely

AND... just as important You won''t have to spend $20,000 for a development kit It will likely be free AND will probably come with source code!

Seeya
Krippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
U dont really need to know much win 32 api, lets face it u can (me as a shining example) get away with only knowing how to create a window and amoung a few other things like cre8ing a OpenGl device content. Havent u pple ever hered off ANSII u know they have a common set of routines which are platform independant are all ure really ever going to need


~prevail by daring to fail~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yah, win32 isnt that hard, and VC++ is a really nice and easy to use program. I learned all on my own but with some help from game programming books

But as for no DOS, thats not any problem anymore, as not many people still use, and almost no one is taught on it anymore. Everyone is usually taught on linux or VS.

Possibility
P.S. I''m bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by EbonySeraph

I started learning C/C++ for DOS console applications as did just about everyone here(as a starting point for C++ or C). I know Windows 98 does not require DOS but comes with it -- and I think DOS actually loads Windows 98. But what happens when 98 is obsolete and everything is Windows ME+? ...


Sorry, I stopped reading here, because that is so BLATANTLY WRONG.

Damn Microsoft to Hell for making everyone think that an operating system is the same as a GUI.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibility, you should learn how to program in the Win32 API. You can learn to use VC++ 6.0 easily but to fully utilize it learning the API is better. Even though its harder its more rewarding. Lower level programming gives you more control, and later in your programming career if you only know how to make Windows GUI Applications using VC++ (assuming under the MFC wizard) you wont get far. Foreigners to C++(and any language like it) can make programs using VC++.

In fact, I STOPPED learning how to use VC++ after the first two chapters in a book because the level was too high(not difficulty). I wanted to know how to program using the windows.h library even if it was a lot more work - which it is, defining, setting up, registering, and showing a window is about 50 lines alone. And creating the message loop is probably another 30 or so depeding on what your program actually does - 30 would probably be a minimal program that knows where you clicked, closes the program, and lets windows deal with other messages. If you dont know what messages are(Possibility) then you dont know enough about programming to move on the Open GL(IMHO).

Also I agree that the Win32 API isn't that hard, it would just be a lot more overwhelming to newer programmers. I finnaly got my first Win32 App working recently and almost already memorized all of what I need to do to create a window and establish a message loop. But anyone human - with mo programming experience - will think its some cryptic code...probably because of the naming system used, like LPCSTR(long pointer constant to a string - even that sounds tuff).

"Ogun's Laughter Is No Joke!!!" - Ogun Kills On The Right, A Nigerian Poem.

Edited by - EbonySeraph on June 14, 2001 12:31:55 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Learning to use VC++ 6.0 != using MFC AppWizard. There''s a lot more to Visual C++ to that.

For example, I thought VC++ sucked, until I managed to add my own tools to the IDE (which is cool), and found out that I could generate ASM listings (which is even cooler ). There''s probably a heck of a lot more that I don''t know about (adding a custom project to the projects tab?), but I''m sure learning the whole IDE will be a rewarding experience.

As for Linux being the future, we''ll get there when we get there. At the moment, Linux doesn''t have a place on my computer. Running in console mode without XFree86 already takes up 79MB of ram. With X running, it jumps to 120 MB, without any apps running! To make things worse, X runs slow. Yes, I did recompile my own kernel, disabling stuff I didn''t need.

In contrast, on my PC, win98 SE takes about 32 MB, with all drivers loaded and a GUI running. The only time >100 MB of ram is utilized is when I''ve got VC++ 6.0, PSP7, MS Word, Adobe Acrobat reader, and Delphi, Inno Setup and PowerArchiver running all at once. And no, Win98 didn''t crash. The last time my Win98 box crashed was... er... gee, I can''t remember. Honest.

While I agree that Linux giving competition to MS is good for consumers, to say that Linux is the future, is pushing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I''ve gathered, MS do not intend to remove their Command Interpreter from the Windows platform. I know a couple of MS systems programmers, and they can''t live without it.

Contrary to what many people think, DOS isn''t that black box which comes up when you type "command" or "cmd" in the run box. It really is a couple of SYS files which live in your boot sector. When MS say they''re "getting rid of DOS", is means they''re replacing these with something else (NTLDR & NTDETECT.COM). It does not mean the end of console applications.

Sure, newbies prefer to work in a smaller, less obtrusive environment than Win32. I remember the days when I was content writing BASIC programs in QB. I started real coding in Turbo C (well, Turbo Pascal actually, but then I realised how bad pascal was ). It was nice to be able to draw stuff without having to worry about device contexts, message pumps and all the other rubbish Win32 has given us. It was good to be able to write programs which took down DOS (very easy indeed ). I couldn''t imagine writing windows 3.0 programs... I took a look at what was required just to get a window up, and decided to stick to console stuff.

Think back to when you started out -- would you have felt happy working with VC6 and a blank Win32 app? This got me thinking -- if they _DO_ phase out the command interpreter, why doesn''t somebody sit down and write an IDE which provides ANSI C (or whatever language you want), and do something similar to VB -- allow you to run code inside the IDE without compilation. That way, there''s no frustrating building, and bugs don''t take down the OS or other programs. On seccond thoughts, it might not be possible... but something similar would be great. Have a seriese of tutorials which accompany the code, and nudge them towards Win32 programming.

I''ll just say a little now about the whole Linux thing here (as if I haven''t said enough ).

Linux is a cool OS. I currently have 4 (working) PCs, and none of them run it. Why? Linux, IMHO, is not ready for prime-time. Games aren''t as fun (also IMHO), particularly developing and installing (that''s what I mean by fun, anyway). I''ve had a few problems with stability on my main computer, and I think it''s got something to do with my soundcard. I don''t have the cash (or the hardware) to shell out for a copy of Maya, and my CD burner won''t work under Linux. Driver support is limited, performance is arguably slower, and it''s not very user-friendly.

Windows, on the other hand, isn''t much better. The GUI sucks (WindowBlinds doesn''t make things much better...), stability is almost non-existant (except on NT-based stuff, which runs much better), and networking is a pain. There are several reasons I''m still using win2k: I love Office 2000 -- there is no alternative; I love games, and DirectX makes things much better than the good old SoundBlaster days; WinAmp is better than X11Amp, and doesn''t suffer as much when I''m trying to _use_ the computer; Development tools are better -- I''d rather use MSDEV than emacs and automake any day!; When I''m having an off-day, I don''t need any brains to use the OS and play some Mah Jong to get things going again; I prefer the layout of Win2k (as in directoy structure), and add-remove programs is always good fun; and my damn ISP makes me use it to connect to the net (although they''re going bankrupt in 5 days time, and I''m getting cable, which _does_ work under linux, so I think I''ll dig out my p120 and have it route for me ).

Wow -- did I write all that!?! That''s how I feel anyways. I''d love to use Linux right now, but I''m afraid a _LOT_ more work needs to be done before I''ll run it on this machine. And as for newbies, when they _do_ get rid of COMMAND.COM, I''m sure they''re be a replacement somewhere (Cygnus'' Bash interpreter for Win32?).

That''s about $5 worth, but it''s aussie money, so it''s probably worth about 2 US cents... go figure

Simon Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by NuffSaid

As for Linux being the future, we''ll get there when we get there. At the moment, Linux doesn''t have a place on my computer. Running in console mode without XFree86 already takes up 79MB of ram. With X running, it jumps to 120 MB, without any apps running! To make things worse, X runs slow. Yes, I did recompile my own kernel, disabling stuff I didn''t need.


A lot of times *nix will claim RAM that it isn''t using (It''s hard to explain, someone else told me about it). That doesn''t mean it''s not available to other applications, it will surrender the claimed RAM as soon as another application needs to use it. So, kind of, it lies about how much RAM is actually being used.

quote:
Original post by xeos

Linux is a cool OS. I currently have 4 (working) PCs, and none of them run it. Why? Linux, IMHO, is not ready for prime-time. Games aren''t as fun (also IMHO), particularly developing and installing (that''s what I mean by fun, anyway). I''ve had a few problems with stability on my main computer, and I think it''s got something to do with my soundcard. I don''t have the cash (or the hardware) to shell out for a copy of Maya, and my CD burner won''t work under Linux. Driver support is limited, performance is arguably slower, and it''s not very user-friendly.


You could use Blender instead of Maya (all 3D Modeling programs have complex interfaces, learning one instead of another isn''t much of an issue ). About the CD burner: That''s probably the fault of the company that made it. Any CD burner that uses standard methods of hardware interaction should have a way for any OS that can run on your hardware to use it. About performance: Do you have the newest version of XFree86? If you don''t, the newest version is much faster than the previous ones. The official NVidia drivers from Linux (XFree86) are also coming along very well, I wish more companies had official drivers for it.

quote:
Original post by xeos

I love Office 2000 -- there is no alternative; I love games, and DirectX makes things much better than the good old SoundBlaster days; WinAmp is better than X11Amp, and doesn''t suffer as much when I''m trying to _use_ the computer; Development tools are better -- I''d rather use MSDEV than emacs and automake any day!;


Have you tried KOffice or Star Office? About DirectX for Sound: OpenAL is aiming to be a cross platform accelerated sound API, so being forced to use DirectX for sound isn''t going to be much of an issue. About X11Amp: There are more MP3 players than X11Amp (XMMS, FreeAmp, et cetera). You don''t have to use emacs and automake, have you tried KDevelop? It''s the MSVC of Linux. I prefer to use the command line and make now that I understand it though.

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is true that Linux is not ready for primetime yet in the workstation or gaming arenas, but they are way beyond primetime for server software.

I used to work for a web hosting company that offered hosting on NT and Linux. We could host over 500 sites on an optimized P3 600/256MB Linux box while at 275 an NT box running IIS on the exact same hardware will start to choke.

I also worked for a major online sporting site (THE major online sporting site...) and the only PCs in the building running any Microsoft products were the receptionists and secretaries.

Of course the desktop GUI is not as refined as Microsoft yet. There is a very good reason for that. Microsoft''s GUI is bloated and error-ridden. The XFree86/Gnome guys are concentrating on making a STABLE and LEAN running GUI and making sure that they conform to standards set out by the different standards committees instead of making their own standards and forcing everybody to live with them. They are also building it to be easily extendable by in-house developers. Try extending Windows. Go ahead and ask old Billy boy for a copy of his source code

Linux does not waste resources the way Windows does. Sure, you load XFree and it tells you that it is using 120MB of RAM. You run it for 3 weeks doing different things, exit to Linux console, go back in and it will give you the same numbers.
Try doing that in Windows. Run Windows for 3 weeks playing games without rebooting and tell me what your system resources look like.

The performance of a Linux box depends more on the memory available than does Windows compared to processor speeds. Take a normal Win9x/ME box with 256MB of RAM and do some benchmarking on high memory usage applications. Now add another 256MB of RAM and do it again. See a difference? Didn''t think so.

Do the same thing on Linux. Major difference.

NT will improve performance some but it will not be as dramatic as Linux.

I can write a program on Linux that will COOK an Athlon processor ( I have a toasted specimen if you don''t believe me )that has standard cooling while I can only make it really hot on Windows. Linux uses the full power of your processor and memory. That is why you can still run linux applications on some really slow processors.

IBM, Dell, DEC are all jumping on the Linux bandwagon in a major fashion.

Expect some good stuff real soon.

Seeya
Krippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t see the ability to melt the CPU as a benefit

And W2k has both, cmd.exe AND a command.exe (that emulates command.com); someday they might decide to finally drop the command.com support, but they''ll always have ''cmd''.

You can build console appliations with MSVC right now; they only run under Win32, but you don''t need to know all that GDI stuff just to start learning C on Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites