Win32 API and .Net Future
-
joshfl wrote: almost had to write sum hate mail here. joel ought to stick to software. there is SOooo many reasons this statement is wrong. What are they ? A good modern automatic is in many ways BETTER than a manual transmission in normal driving. The only situation I can think of when its not is when pulling a heavy trailer. There may ba a case for debate about driving in bad weather but that is more a function of antispin antilock technology and not the tranny. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
I bet you brag about that hot little Dodge Caravan in your driveway, don't you? :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
John Carson wrote: I am always part-amused and part-irritated with talk about "safe" or "unsafe" code --- a piece of Microsoft marketing fluff that some people have swallowed. That's where you're wrong. Go write a C++ library and put in on the web as an ActiveX control. Guess what - it's unsafe code, and when a user goes to run it, it's an all-or-nothing blind prayer your code doesn't do anything malicious. Or put an unmanaged .exe on the web for download; after I go download it I have to say a few Hail Mary's in hopes your code doesn't do anything bad. Don't like the marketing term 'unsafe code'? Fine, let's just call it potentially dangerous code, because it has the potential to corrupt someone's machine. On the flip side, take a look at so-called 'safe code' using .NET or Java. I can write an applet in Java and the J2EE runtime can guarantee (bugs aside) that the code being run will not harm my machine. Or I can write a C# .exe and deploy it either over the web or run it locally and the CLR runtime can guarantee (bugs aside) that the code being run will not harm my machine. So guess what? It's no longer a pray and run situation anymore! Pray and run situations are bad for the user and have already irreparably damanged the image of computer security. Imagine if all client apps were managed code? Here I could actually click on one of those 'important document' spam attachments without damaging my machine. :-) I don't like marketing terms either, but 'safe' or 'verified' code correctly describes code running in a managed & secure environment ala .NET, and 'unsafe' code very accurately describes unmanaged code. #include "witty_sig.h"
Judah Himango wrote: That's where you're wrong. Go write a C++ library and put in on the web as an ActiveX control. Guess what - it's unsafe code, and when a user goes to run it, it's an all-or-nothing blind prayer your code doesn't do anything malicious. Or put an unmanaged .exe on the web for download; after I go download it I have to say a few Hail Mary's in hopes your code doesn't do anything bad. Don't like the marketing term 'unsafe code'? Fine, let's just call it potentially dangerous code, because it has the potential to corrupt someone's machine. On the flip side, take a look at so-called 'safe code' using .NET or Java. I can write an applet in Java and the J2EE runtime can guarantee (bugs aside) that the code being run will not harm my machine. Or I can write a C# .exe and deploy it either over the web or run it locally and the CLR runtime can guarantee (bugs aside) that the code being run will not harm my machine. So guess what? It's no longer a pray and run situation anymore! Pray and run situations are bad for the user and have already irreparably damanged the image of computer security. Imagine if all client apps were managed code? Here I could actually click on one of those 'important document' spam attachments without damaging my machine. My area is desktop apps rather than network/Internet stuff. In that context, "unsafe" code means manual resource management and the associated risk of resource leaks. In fact, my strong impression is that the chief use of the term by Microsoft relates to manual resource management. This annoys me because the use of sensible C++ programming idioms (use of the Standard library, acquiring resources in constructors and releasing them in destructors, use of smart pointers etc.) makes resource leaks a minor issue. Well-written apps are in this respect very safe. On the other hand, there is ample scope for managed code to be buggy and hence to be "unsafe" in other ways. You make the point that you can run applets in a sandbox and, bugs aside, the sandbox will stop them doing anything malicious. Of course, bugs aside, Windows machines wouldn't have anywhere near the vulnerability to viruses that they currently do. But there are bugs. Nevertheless, I accept the basic point that sandboxes can be useful in restricting permissions to applications that can do their job with limited rights (this, of course, is also the principle behind Administrator vs User privileges and the like on the desktop, which are applicable to "unsafe" C++ code).
-
Navin wrote: There are *far* more people running something other than Windows XP or Server 2003 than there are running it. I disagree. This model works because Microsoft has a monopoly. Take a look at Google Zeitgeist[^], in particular the OSes used to access Google[^]. This is a pretty good indication of the current market - currently 67% of all searches on Google were made by machines running Windows XP or 2000. That's pretty impressive by any standard, just goes to show that a lot of people do in fact upgrade or just buy new machines altogether, even after the .com bomb, even after everyone had already been running a solid OS (Win98 SE). That said, I do agree developers will not develop Longhorn-specific software until a vast majority of machines can run their software, or until emulation software or alternative runtimes ala Mono can run XAML+Avalon on multiple OSes, both of which are very likely to happen. #include "witty_sig.h"
Judah Himango wrote: This is a pretty good indication of the current market - currently 67% of all searches on Google were made by machines running Windows XP or 2000. This is the most ludricous deduction one could make. I see no logic in it all. I still have two PCs at home running '98, but I don't do any googling from them at all. I use one exclusively for email and the other for all my banking/finance stuff. You are ignoring parts of the market. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
-
joshfl wrote: almost had to write sum hate mail here. joel ought to stick to software. there is SOooo many reasons this statement is wrong. What are they ? A good modern automatic is in many ways BETTER than a manual transmission in normal driving. The only situation I can think of when its not is when pulling a heavy trailer. There may ba a case for debate about driving in bad weather but that is more a function of antispin antilock technology and not the tranny. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
What about one big one...
Cost!
Manual transmissions are cheaper in 3 ways: :bob: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight) :bob: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard) :bob: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? :eek: I have... and then my next car was a manual. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
-
He makes some very good points, and a very interesting view on the MSDN Magazine camp vs. The Raymond Chen camp. As a developer I can agree 100% about the MSDN camp winning; for several months now all I see on MSDN is articles on technology MS wants us to use as a replacement to our existing technology. To make it worse, often times this technology isn't even available to developers (for example, I've been reading many articles and code samples pertaining to Longhorn, Avalon, XAML, generics, etc. which developers can't get unless your boss is generous enough to get an MSDN subscription, and even then it's just tech previews of software of alpha maturity. I disagree with him on several points though. One is the idea that web apps will eventually overtake rich client apps. I don't see this happening, although I think the line between a rich client app and a web app will become blurred as client apps start getting deployed through web browsers. The reason I doubt this is simply because people ~like~ running rich client apps, believe it or not. Sure, web apps suffice for some simpler tasks like web mail, but honestly, no one wants to have to navigate to some URL to run office. MS has done a lot of research in this area and had to change some of their stategies for planned web apps. And it's not just end users, I find (as Joel points out) that most power user/geek types truely despise the idea of replacing client apps with web apps. Just because web apps make deployment a lesser burden on the developer does not mean developers should switch en masse to writing web apps. I also disagree that .NET, the 'unification of the mess of VB, C++, and Win32', has only created a bigger mess. As a former C/C++ developer, I find .NET to be a breath of fresh air from the disaster that is previous programming models in C and VB. Sometimes when things get messy enough, it's time to start with a clean slate. Now .NET doesn't exactly wipe out Win32 (obviously, many parts of .NET wrap existing Win32 and COM APIs) so one could argue that .NET is more a mask over ugliness than a clean slate of beauty, but that's where WinFX comes in, which brings me to the 3rd point I disagree with him. WinFX is going to be revolutionary. If anyone doesn't fully understand the scope of what they're trying to accomplish with Longhorn and WinFX, I urge you to read this article[
-
Judah Himango wrote: This is a pretty good indication of the current market - currently 67% of all searches on Google were made by machines running Windows XP or 2000. This is the most ludricous deduction one could make. I see no logic in it all. I still have two PCs at home running '98, but I don't do any googling from them at all. I use one exclusively for email and the other for all my banking/finance stuff. You are ignoring parts of the market. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
Hey the most widely used search engine on the planet says lots of people use feature XYZ? That proves nothing! What terrible reasoning! I have 2 computers at home that don't use feature XYZ, so I must be right and the widely used search engine must be wrong! #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Navin wrote: There are *far* more people running something other than Windows XP or Server 2003 than there are running it. I disagree. This model works because Microsoft has a monopoly. Take a look at Google Zeitgeist[^], in particular the OSes used to access Google[^]. This is a pretty good indication of the current market - currently 67% of all searches on Google were made by machines running Windows XP or 2000. That's pretty impressive by any standard, just goes to show that a lot of people do in fact upgrade or just buy new machines altogether, even after the .com bomb, even after everyone had already been running a solid OS (Win98 SE). That said, I do agree developers will not develop Longhorn-specific software until a vast majority of machines can run their software, or until emulation software or alternative runtimes ala Mono can run XAML+Avalon on multiple OSes, both of which are very likely to happen. #include "witty_sig.h"
Judah Himango wrote: That said, I do agree developers will not develop Longhorn-specific software until a vast majority of machines can run their software, or until emulation software or alternative runtimes ala Mono can run XAML+Avalon on multiple OSes, both of which are very likely to happen. Chances are the data you showed is for the US only. And it is skewed, these results assume the computers have an Internet connection. This may be true for US, Europe, and other developed countries, but for emerging markets, this is certainly not the case. And a lot of the XP usage is probably people upgrading from toy OSes like 95/98/Me. I doubt Longhorn is such a monumental change. Now if XAML+Avalon ends up getting back-ported to other OSes, then I can see developers using it. But to develop something Longhonr-specific (until 10+ years into the future, when everyone finally upgrades) is ludicrous. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
-
Judah Himango wrote: That's where you're wrong. Go write a C++ library and put in on the web as an ActiveX control. Guess what - it's unsafe code, and when a user goes to run it, it's an all-or-nothing blind prayer your code doesn't do anything malicious. Or put an unmanaged .exe on the web for download; after I go download it I have to say a few Hail Mary's in hopes your code doesn't do anything bad. Don't like the marketing term 'unsafe code'? Fine, let's just call it potentially dangerous code, because it has the potential to corrupt someone's machine. On the flip side, take a look at so-called 'safe code' using .NET or Java. I can write an applet in Java and the J2EE runtime can guarantee (bugs aside) that the code being run will not harm my machine. Or I can write a C# .exe and deploy it either over the web or run it locally and the CLR runtime can guarantee (bugs aside) that the code being run will not harm my machine. So guess what? It's no longer a pray and run situation anymore! Pray and run situations are bad for the user and have already irreparably damanged the image of computer security. Imagine if all client apps were managed code? Here I could actually click on one of those 'important document' spam attachments without damaging my machine. My area is desktop apps rather than network/Internet stuff. In that context, "unsafe" code means manual resource management and the associated risk of resource leaks. In fact, my strong impression is that the chief use of the term by Microsoft relates to manual resource management. This annoys me because the use of sensible C++ programming idioms (use of the Standard library, acquiring resources in constructors and releasing them in destructors, use of smart pointers etc.) makes resource leaks a minor issue. Well-written apps are in this respect very safe. On the other hand, there is ample scope for managed code to be buggy and hence to be "unsafe" in other ways. You make the point that you can run applets in a sandbox and, bugs aside, the sandbox will stop them doing anything malicious. Of course, bugs aside, Windows machines wouldn't have anywhere near the vulnerability to viruses that they currently do. But there are bugs. Nevertheless, I accept the basic point that sandboxes can be useful in restricting permissions to applications that can do their job with limited rights (this, of course, is also the principle behind Administrator vs User privileges and the like on the desktop, which are applicable to "unsafe" C++ code).
John Carson wrote: Well-written apps are in this respect very safe. Agreed. Too bad there's so many poorly written unmanaged apps! :-) #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? By all means of course it was! The whole point of the article we're discussing is based on the fact that Win32 was what put Microsoft in their place atop the software world. By the same measure then, WinFX will be slowly replacing this once-revolutionary Win32 API. Alone that is a huge move on Microsoft's part. As if that wasn't enough, this will be the first all-managed Windows API, exposed to managed languages first and foremost! What a move away from the past, where OS core libraries are exposed only to unmanaged C developers! But now it's open to all managed languages running in a secure environment. That's big, that's a risk, and it's definitely not spin. #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? By all means of course it was! The whole point of the article we're discussing is based on the fact that Win32 was what put Microsoft in their place atop the software world. By the same measure then, WinFX will be slowly replacing this once-revolutionary Win32 API. Alone that is a huge move on Microsoft's part. As if that wasn't enough, this will be the first all-managed Windows API, exposed to managed languages first and foremost! What a move away from the past, where OS core libraries are exposed only to unmanaged C developers! But now it's open to all managed languages running in a secure environment. That's big, that's a risk, and it's definitely not spin. #include "witty_sig.h"
Judah Himango wrote: Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? i'm not sure that says a damned thing about whether or not WinFX will be revolutionary. you get back to me in three years when it's finally out. if it hasn't been replaced by four or five other Brand New Revolutionary Technologies, i'll concede. Software | Cleek
-
Hey the most widely used search engine on the planet says lots of people use feature XYZ? That proves nothing! What terrible reasoning! I have 2 computers at home that don't use feature XYZ, so I must be right and the widely used search engine must be wrong! #include "witty_sig.h"
Once again another idiot has prooved that axiom. When jumping to conclusions, there is an underlying agenda that needs to be propogated. I called into question your lack of logic in jumping from a statistic that 67% of all Googlers use XP to state that the majority of all computers run XP(which is the point you were trying to make). Go dig up more data and apply some logical analysis for backing up your arguments. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
-
Judah Himango wrote: Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? i'm not sure that says a damned thing about whether or not WinFX will be revolutionary. you get back to me in three years when it's finally out. if it hasn't been replaced by four or five other Brand New Revolutionary Technologies, i'll concede. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: back to me in three years when it's finally out Oh, you optimist you! :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
-
What about one big one...
Cost!
Manual transmissions are cheaper in 3 ways: :bob: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight) :bob: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard) :bob: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? :eek: I have... and then my next car was a manual. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
Navin wrote: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - if you know how to use it. Navin wrote: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. Navin wrote: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? I have... and then my next car was a manual To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end if I remember correctly ( and I'm really not sure I had 3 or 4 different ones installed). And I was working on the clutch every 3 months - and thats expensive. Maybe it is just luck or whatever but I have NEVER had to replace a auto in any car I have ever owned. I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It has been completly restored to factory specs and doesn't get driven much anymore but the drive train is as solid as a rock. If you take care of them - they take care of you. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
-
Judah Himango wrote: Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? i'm not sure that says a damned thing about whether or not WinFX will be revolutionary. you get back to me in three years when it's finally out. if it hasn't been replaced by four or five other Brand New Revolutionary Technologies, i'll concede. Software | Cleek
Perhaps we're using the wrong terms here. Maybe 'unique' is better suited for now, until 3 years down the road we'll see whether it is revolutionary. ;-) I believe it already is revolutionary because it is the first all-managed OS core API *and* it is replacing an API that has been used for over a decade (!!). That alone makes it a noteworthy changing of the guard in my book, something that seperates this from spin and other so-called revolutionary technologies. #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Once again another idiot has prooved that axiom. When jumping to conclusions, there is an underlying agenda that needs to be propogated. I called into question your lack of logic in jumping from a statistic that 67% of all Googlers use XP to state that the majority of all computers run XP(which is the point you were trying to make). Go dig up more data and apply some logical analysis for backing up your arguments. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
I pointed out some sample data, a majority of the billions of users worldwide that access google are running XP or 2k. You pointed out your sample data, 2 computers in your basement that don't use google and don't run XP or 2k. :rolleyes::laugh: I'm not saying 67% of all computers in the world run XP or 2k. The point I've been making is that Microsoft's operating systems have been widely adopted at a rather fast pace; XP has been out only a few years now and it's by far a majority of the internet connected end-user market. Which brings me to the point that Longhorn probably will be adopted quickly too unless Microsoft loses their monopoly. #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Judah Himango wrote: That said, I do agree developers will not develop Longhorn-specific software until a vast majority of machines can run their software, or until emulation software or alternative runtimes ala Mono can run XAML+Avalon on multiple OSes, both of which are very likely to happen. Chances are the data you showed is for the US only. And it is skewed, these results assume the computers have an Internet connection. This may be true for US, Europe, and other developed countries, but for emerging markets, this is certainly not the case. And a lot of the XP usage is probably people upgrading from toy OSes like 95/98/Me. I doubt Longhorn is such a monumental change. Now if XAML+Avalon ends up getting back-ported to other OSes, then I can see developers using it. But to develop something Longhonr-specific (until 10+ years into the future, when everyone finally upgrades) is ludicrous. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
I believe the statistics shown on Google Zeitgeist are global. Regardless, in all honesty, who is marketing their software to users without internet access in 3rd world countries? #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Navin wrote: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - if you know how to use it. Navin wrote: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. Navin wrote: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? I have... and then my next car was a manual To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end if I remember correctly ( and I'm really not sure I had 3 or 4 different ones installed). And I was working on the clutch every 3 months - and thats expensive. Maybe it is just luck or whatever but I have NEVER had to replace a auto in any car I have ever owned. I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It has been completly restored to factory specs and doesn't get driven much anymore but the drive train is as solid as a rock. If you take care of them - they take care of you. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
Richard Stringer wrote: But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - ... I'd say the better argument for a manual at cruising speed, besides the weight, is that in an automatic you are always wasting power in the torque converter. Even if you're just cruising along, the torque converter is still turning fluid. And in most manuals (besides old school ones, or specialty ones like your vette), 5th gear is an overdrive ratio. Richard Stringer wrote: ... if you know how to use it. I agree on this part. But most people don't know how to use an auto either. They'll just mash the pedal when they want to go faster, and hit the brakes when they want to slow down. Complete waste. Whereas, most people in a manual will just coast, or let the drivetrain slow them down when there's no real need to brake. Richard Stringer wrote: And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. This is a good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the overall cost of owning an automatic. Sure, you've had good luck. Most people I know haven't. And when autos die, they are expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end Yeah but that's different because it's a specialty car. 375 HP? Wasn't driven by an old lady? I wonder why you kept blowing clutches. And if it had an auto, you probably would have kept smoking the torque converter, which would have been a lot more expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It's also a heck of a lot newer than your vette. Lots of guys I know (lots) used to have built up Mustangs making 300-400 HP or more at the wheels, and these cars saw lots of drag racing (at the strip), and they didn't se
-
Richard Stringer wrote: But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - ... I'd say the better argument for a manual at cruising speed, besides the weight, is that in an automatic you are always wasting power in the torque converter. Even if you're just cruising along, the torque converter is still turning fluid. And in most manuals (besides old school ones, or specialty ones like your vette), 5th gear is an overdrive ratio. Richard Stringer wrote: ... if you know how to use it. I agree on this part. But most people don't know how to use an auto either. They'll just mash the pedal when they want to go faster, and hit the brakes when they want to slow down. Complete waste. Whereas, most people in a manual will just coast, or let the drivetrain slow them down when there's no real need to brake. Richard Stringer wrote: And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. This is a good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the overall cost of owning an automatic. Sure, you've had good luck. Most people I know haven't. And when autos die, they are expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end Yeah but that's different because it's a specialty car. 375 HP? Wasn't driven by an old lady? I wonder why you kept blowing clutches. And if it had an auto, you probably would have kept smoking the torque converter, which would have been a lot more expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It's also a heck of a lot newer than your vette. Lots of guys I know (lots) used to have built up Mustangs making 300-400 HP or more at the wheels, and these cars saw lots of drag racing (at the strip), and they didn't se
Chris Richardson wrote: I'd say the better argument for a manual at cruising speed, besides the weight, is that in an automatic you are always wasting power in the torque converter. Even if you're just cruising along, the torque converter is still turning fluid. And in most manuals (besides old school ones, or specialty ones like your vette), 5th gear is an overdrive ratio. Not really true. Below is a article from the latest "Racing Tech" a mag fro drag race builders: "Race car builders often consider the Powerglide first because of its light static weight, strong build qualities, and relatively low rotational mass. A typical Powerglide often weighs about 100 pounds (plus or minus 10 pounds, depending on the equipment and whether it has a direct-drive pump or a torque converter). Comparatively, a three-speed manual Muncie or Saginaw transmission can weigh 30 to 40 pounds more than a direct-drive Powerglide when the flywheel and clutch are included. Lightening those transmissions, combined with the expense of a racing clutch, make the Powerglide an economical winner in many cases." many drag racers are going to autos because they are faster than manuals and are also easier to handle for the driver - no more missed gears costing them a race. Also many off road racers are going to autos also. Chris Richardson wrote: This is a good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the overall cost of owning an automatic. Sure, you've had good luck. Most people I know haven't. And when autos die, they are expensive to replace. I just did a quick poll in the office - 6 guys 2 girls - not counting myself. No one had a manual - the 2 girls say they can't even drive one - one person has ever had to replace a tranny. That was in an 88 Chevy Surburban bought used for 1800.00 and had 154000 miles on it. Cost him about 900.00 in parts ( junkyard) and labor. Also modern trannys are almost all warranted for 100000 miles. Chris Richardson wrote: Yeah but that's different because it's a specialty car. 375 HP? Wasn't driven by an old lady? I wonder why you kept blowing clutches. And if it had an auto, you probably would have kept smoking the torque converter, which would have been a lot more expensive to replace. Nope - no old ladies :) But I had competition clutchs on that sucker - racing parts. Also have fond memories of adjusting the lifters every 3 weeks and having to cut a hole ( a small one ) in the wheel well in order to reach
-
joshfl wrote: almost had to write sum hate mail here. joel ought to stick to software. there is SOooo many reasons this statement is wrong. What are they ? A good modern automatic is in many ways BETTER than a manual transmission in normal driving. The only situation I can think of when its not is when pulling a heavy trailer. There may ba a case for debate about driving in bad weather but that is more a function of antispin antilock technology and not the tranny. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. c) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. Thats not all, but all i have time for now. just saw the replies in this thread this morning and have work to doo.. but alas another auto apologist, i cannot let this stare me in the face w/ no response. (ps, i just glanced and saw some of the other threads touched on TC and reliability.. so some of this may be reiterating what was already said.) blah
-
a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. c) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. Thats not all, but all i have time for now. just saw the replies in this thread this morning and have work to doo.. but alas another auto apologist, i cannot let this stare me in the face w/ no response. (ps, i just glanced and saw some of the other threads touched on TC and reliability.. so some of this may be reiterating what was already said.) blah
joshfl wrote: a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? Well yes in a way. The power loss thru a converter is less than 3%. Thats about what you would get by having tires deflated by 1.6 lbs at racing speed. Power steering robs more power than your converter - by far. joshfl wrote: b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. Thats BS and you know it. It may have had a grain of truth 30-40 years ago but not with modern trannys. Its like arguing ( as NASCAR ) that carbs are better than fuel injection. OR that manual steering is better than power steering. Are ABS better than the older braking systems? I have NEVER had to replace a tranny in any of my vehicles - manual or automatic. Good maintainince will work on both. The future is here and it is computer controlled - brakes and transmissions and engines. The driver just has to point and go - well almost :) joshfl wrote: ) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. This is the area that a auto really out does a manual. A good computer controlled auto racing tranny will outperform 99% of the drivers out there. And you ALWAYS have the option of shifting when you want to - its just that the tranny is usually better at it then a human driver. Thats why more and more racers are going in that direction. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
