VS 6.0 vs VS 2005 (c++)
-
Another possible way to get VS6 is through a subscription to MSDN. That's quite expensive, but last time I checked, you could still get old products like VS6 if you're a subscriber. Also, as you've seen in this thread, some people seem to like the newer VSs better. Maybe somebody somewhere who no longer uses VS6 might have their copy for sale. (No I don't. I don't have an installation CD for it either. Wish I did.) BDF
VC6 isn't in MSDN anymore. MS had to stop shipping all products that contained their Java VM, thanks to all the legal crap with Sun.
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Hungarian notation FTW
-
The Athlon 1800+ is a terrible processor, I had two and they were both pathetic. I found a thunderbird 1.3 Ghz and I got better better performance. But four minutes isn't that bad, the project I am working on takes between 8 and 9 minutes. I have to make the display look "pixel perfect" so I spend alot of time making changes and recompiling. Also, I find the 2005 IDE a lot more productive than 6 (but this is really preferance). And on a side note I like 2008 even more.
-Matt Newman
-
welcome to the world of software improvements. Compair the speed of windows 3.1 with XP on the same computer to get the idea. (if you could find a computer that would run both:omg:)
-
Matt Newman wrote:
The Athlon 1800+ is a terrible processor
Is it? I've got one in an old box and it was nothing but reliable, performance wise I can't remember that much.
-
rrrado wrote:
For me nicer icons are definitely not worth to decrease my productivity
VS2003/VS2005/ and beyond are more than just nicer icons. There is really an issue with pros and cons, all things are like that. VS 6.0 was pre standard, as many people said, also it was buggy though might not realize it. You can upgrade the C++ STL with http://www.stlport.org/[^] though you might find things not running quite right because there were a few cases where the functionality changed. The compiler for VS 6.0 is nothing to brag about either. Using the Intel compiler there is a switch I love to joke about, it sets the "emulate microsoft 6.0 bugs" :laugh: although it is serious business when the behavior changes, still it is laughable that you have to turn on bugs to be compatible with 6.0. Now, I do use 6.0, or at least the IDE since we long since graduated to the Intel compiler, still I am familiar with its disadvantages too. If you want speedy compiling, stop using microsoft, use something else. If you want efficient optimization, again use someone else. If you want balance and getting up and going rapidly, microsoft is pretty good. all the IDEs and compilers have pros and cons, choose the one that is right for you.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Matt Newman wrote:
The Athlon 1800+ is a terrible processor
Is it? I've got one in an old box and it was nothing but reliable, performance wise I can't remember that much.
Ed.Poore wrote:
Is it? I've got one in an old box and it was nothing but reliable, performance wise I can't remember that much.
How long do you keep it on? I would keep mine running 24/7 and it would get slower and slower. I had a friend who had the exact same issue with different motherboards. 2003 server would run terribly slow on it if it had been running for longer than a day or two.
-Matt Newman
-
About your optimization comment... out of both Mingw and the MS compiler, MS has produced far far smaller-sized executables. Why is it that you think the MS compiler does a poor job?
Cyrilix wrote:
About your optimization comment... out of both Mingw and the MS compiler, MS has produced far far smaller-sized executables. Why is it that you think the MS compiler does a poor job?
Those are your only two choices? Then true, MS is the better compiler. However, if you want optimization, truly tight optimizaton, you are better off going with the Intel compiler. Plus there are two types of optimzations, one for speed, one for size. Different compilers have different results in each (and on some occasions, different bugs). There are additional net build compiling environments for those truly large projects that need to be build via massive computing power as well as local multi-core builds. All in all there are many choices out there, not just two. I like Intel because few can match it on optimize for speed.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I put vmware on my xp computer (2GHz with 516? mb of ram) and ran windows 3.1 on it and it was slower than the tandy 1000 (20 MHz and ? ram) that the disks came with:-O One day I will get a computer that has enough to use thies nice toys. -- modified at 16:23 Tuesday 14th August, 2007
-
I put vmware on my xp computer (2GHz with 516? mb of ram) and ran windows 3.1 on it and it was slower than the tandy 1000 (20 MHz and ? ram) that the disks came with:-O One day I will get a computer that has enough to use thies nice toys. -- modified at 16:23 Tuesday 14th August, 2007
Its been a few years but in this decade I have booted windows 3.11 natively on a 2GHz machine and wow it was blazing fast. I mean the os boot time was less than 1 second but I did have to wait 10 seconds for the bios to initialize...
John
-
Well, as a software developer today, you should be running at least a low end Core 2 Duo, if you work on large projects. If your company won't even supply you that, then they obviously don't value your time.
Cyrilix wrote:
you should be running at least a low end Core 2 Duo
Well, Athlon X2 3800+ or something or other but that's my own machine, what makes a bigger difference I find is hard drive speed (trying to justify getting a Raptor) & memory. Can run several instances of VS quite happily, SQL Server, IIS and VMWare at the same time.
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
Is it? I've got one in an old box and it was nothing but reliable, performance wise I can't remember that much.
How long do you keep it on? I would keep mine running 24/7 and it would get slower and slower. I had a friend who had the exact same issue with different motherboards. 2003 server would run terribly slow on it if it had been running for longer than a day or two.
-Matt Newman
Matt Newman wrote:
How long do you keep it on?
Used to be 24/7 and never really experienced an issue with it, things were slower than my current machine but I've more than doubled what I had before (almost quadrupled, 1.2GHz up to dual core 2.0GHz). Although I'm a sod for going through the processes and killing anything I didn't recognise or want.
-
rrrado wrote:
I was thinking about switching from vs 6.0 to 2005 althought I don't have any good reason.
What about this: Visual C++ 6 was released before the C++ standard was approved. Visual C++ 7/7.1/8 already incorporates many features of the standard. Another reason: the libraries. Some libraries have changed (i.e. ATL), others have been improved (i.e. MFC). For these two reasons I switched from VC 6 to VC 8.
A polar bear is a bear whose coordinates has been changed in terms of sine and cosine. Quanehsti Pah Nation States