Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. New Windows and MFC

New Windows and MFC

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
c++question
29 Posts 16 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B Offline
    B Offline
    BrockVnm
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


    There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

    B M K P M 8 Replies Last reply
    0
    • B BrockVnm

      With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


      There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

      B Offline
      B Offline
      benjymous
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      I'd have thought that Microsoft would be really shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't include some kind of backwards compatibility layer for Win32 based code. After all, Win2k (not sure about XP) can still run 16 bit win3.1 and OS/2 applications (thanks to it's NT heritage) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!

      D L 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • B BrockVnm

        With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


        There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Mike Dimmick
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Last time I looked at the Longhorn SDK - back in Alpha build 4074 - the Win32 API was still present. Indeed, it was being enhanced. I don't have any reason to believe that this will be different for Windows Vista Beta 1. I started writing a series[^] this time last year, but stopped - partly due to laziness but eventually because MS effectively restarted the Longhorn development. I might return to this now that Beta 1 is out. Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • B BrockVnm

          With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


          There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

          K Offline
          K Offline
          Kevin McFarlane
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Have a look at this. Clearest overview I’ve seen. The diagrams are especially good… http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2004/07/13/winfx.html[^] Kevin

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B BrockVnm

            With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


            There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

            P Offline
            P Offline
            Pavel Klocek
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/whidbey/mfc2005/default.aspx[^] Pavel Sonork 100.15206

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B BrockVnm

              With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


              There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Michael P Butler
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Considering that MFC is based upon the Win32 API and the fact that Microsoft Office is still (and will be for the foreseeable future) a Win32 API based app, then I'm quiet sure that all our legacy C++/MFC code will run on Windows Vista. :-D Whether or not we get MFC wrappers to the new Avalon user interface components is debatable and probably doubtful. (Given that the VS 2005 MFC seems to be still using the standard Common Controls for toolbars yet the C#/.NET gets the new Toolstrip with the newer look) Backwards compatibility has always been Microsoft strength and one of the reasons why most developers haven't converted their apps to run on Linux or Apple platforms. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • B BrockVnm

                With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


                There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

                G Offline
                G Offline
                Giles
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Avalon (the new gui) etc is built on top of win32, even though its .NET. For C++/MFC gyus, its business as usual. I do use .NET with C#, but as good as it is, I'm still going to be using C++ and MFC, and its seems MS have every intention of continuing with it as well.

                J 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • B BrockVnm

                  With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


                  There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

                  N Offline
                  N Offline
                  Nish Nishant
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Funny! I just blogged on this today! Is MFC dead? Does MFC have a future?[^]

                  B J 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • B BrockVnm

                    With all this talk about the new Windows I was wondering how this will affect old code and also new code going forward. Are the changes so significant that the apps we write now in MFC will not work on the new Windows? Will we have to learn all new libraries for windows programing?


                    There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

                    A Offline
                    A Offline
                    Anna Jayne Metcalfe
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    I wouldn't worry. MFC is likely to be supported for a long time. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Visual Studio Orcas (the successor to Whidbey/VS2005) added XAML support to MFC. :cool: Anna :rose: Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.

                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • N Nish Nishant

                      Funny! I just blogged on this today! Is MFC dead? Does MFC have a future?[^]

                      B Offline
                      B Offline
                      BrockVnm
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      Thanks Nish that was very informative. Im glad to see that not everyone is just moving over to the .NET platform.


                      There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

                      B 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • G Giles

                        Avalon (the new gui) etc is built on top of win32, even though its .NET. For C++/MFC gyus, its business as usual. I do use .NET with C#, but as good as it is, I'm still going to be using C++ and MFC, and its seems MS have every intention of continuing with it as well.

                        J Offline
                        J Offline
                        Judah Gabriel Himango
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        Avalon (the new gui) etc is built on top of win32 Actually, it's built on top of DirectX more than anything. There are no Win32 common controls under the hood, as it is with Windows Forms. Avalon controls are managed code and do not have their own HWNDs (with the exception of context menus and drop down lists, which need their own HWND since they can be drawn outside the containing window).

                        Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango

                        G C 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • B BrockVnm

                          Thanks Nish that was very informative. Im glad to see that not everyone is just moving over to the .NET platform.


                          There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.

                          B Offline
                          B Offline
                          Blake Miller
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #12

                          The 2 million plus lines of code in our product is not going to migrate all in one day ... :rolleyes:

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • B benjymous

                            I'd have thought that Microsoft would be really shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't include some kind of backwards compatibility layer for Win32 based code. After all, Win2k (not sure about XP) can still run 16 bit win3.1 and OS/2 applications (thanks to it's NT heritage) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!

                            D Offline
                            D Offline
                            David Crow
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #13

                            I just ran a program last night on my XP machine that was coded for Windows v3.0. The date on the CD was 1992.


                            "One must learn from the bite of the fire to leave it alone." - Native American Proverb

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • N Nish Nishant

                              Funny! I just blogged on this today! Is MFC dead? Does MFC have a future?[^]

                              J Offline
                              J Offline
                              Joel Holdsworth
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #14

                              Will MFC *really* support Avalon? I can barely believe that! Joel Holdsworth

                              J 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J Judah Gabriel Himango

                                Avalon (the new gui) etc is built on top of win32 Actually, it's built on top of DirectX more than anything. There are no Win32 common controls under the hood, as it is with Windows Forms. Avalon controls are managed code and do not have their own HWNDs (with the exception of context menus and drop down lists, which need their own HWND since they can be drawn outside the containing window).

                                Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango

                                G Offline
                                G Offline
                                Giles
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #15

                                But if DirectX is built on COM, then in a way, its still the Windows (win32) subsystem and everything that comes with that as COM is built on top of Win32. What I'm saying is its not built on a subsystem that directly interfaces with the NT subsystem, like the Win32 and Posix subsystems are.

                                J 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • J Judah Gabriel Himango

                                  Avalon (the new gui) etc is built on top of win32 Actually, it's built on top of DirectX more than anything. There are no Win32 common controls under the hood, as it is with Windows Forms. Avalon controls are managed code and do not have their own HWNDs (with the exception of context menus and drop down lists, which need their own HWND since they can be drawn outside the containing window).

                                  Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango

                                  C Offline
                                  C Offline
                                  Chris Richardson
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #16

                                  Win32 is not just the common controls, it's the entire 32 bit API. DirectX is a part of Win32, so yes, Avalon is built on top of Win32. Chris Richardson

                                  J 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • G Giles

                                    But if DirectX is built on COM, then in a way, its still the Windows (win32) subsystem and everything that comes with that as COM is built on top of Win32. What I'm saying is its not built on a subsystem that directly interfaces with the NT subsystem, like the Win32 and Posix subsystems are.

                                    J Offline
                                    J Offline
                                    Judah Gabriel Himango
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #17

                                    You're right that WinFX is not a subsystem like Win32 or Posix. However, WinFX can make direct system calls, eliminating the middleman API (Win32). See this article[^] by Ian Griffiths for more information. Borrowing a snippet from that, Because WinFX will be a part of the OS, it will be able to have a much closer relationship with the low-level system services. In theory, WinFX could act as a peer of Win32 rather than having to be its client; it could effectively be a distinct subsystem. In practice, that's unlikely to happen any time soon for two reasons. First, where Win32 already provides the necessary services, there seems little point in WinFX reinventing the wheel. So expect those parts of the .NET Framework that are wrappers around Win32 (such as Windows Forms) to remain so for the foreseeable future. The second reason for not making WinFX an entirely independent subsystem is that P/Invoke would be tricky to implement if Win32 wasn't still there somewhere. Nevertheless, although we are likely to carry on seeing wrappers where Win32 already provides appropriate services, there's no reason for new services to be exposed at the Win32 level and then wrapped by WinFX. For platform services that are new to Longhorn, their only public API will be in WinFX. There may be corresponding undocumented system calls used by WinFX (just as there are today for many Win32 APIs) but there is no reason for there to be an equivalent new public Win32 API; Longhorn can cut out the middle man and have WinFX make system calls directly.

                                    Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango

                                    C 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C Chris Richardson

                                      Win32 is not just the common controls, it's the entire 32 bit API. DirectX is a part of Win32, so yes, Avalon is built on top of Win32. Chris Richardson

                                      J Offline
                                      J Offline
                                      Judah Gabriel Himango
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #18

                                      Right, but the parent poster was talking about Avalon, in which he claimed was built on Win32, which isn't entirely correct. See my reply to Giles in this same thread for more info.

                                      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • B benjymous

                                        I'd have thought that Microsoft would be really shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't include some kind of backwards compatibility layer for Win32 based code. After all, Win2k (not sure about XP) can still run 16 bit win3.1 and OS/2 applications (thanks to it's NT heritage) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!

                                        L Offline
                                        L Offline
                                        Lost User
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #19

                                        Can it -really- run OS/2 apps? I didn't know that! OS/2 was the thing back in da daze!

                                        G B 2 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • L Lost User

                                          Can it -really- run OS/2 apps? I didn't know that! OS/2 was the thing back in da daze!

                                          G Offline
                                          G Offline
                                          Gary Wheeler
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #20

                                          Carl Mercier wrote: OS/2 Bite your tongue. While you're at it, bite every part of your body within reach of your mouth. Chew hard. OS/2. Blleeecchhh. X| X| X| X|


                                          Software Zen: delete this;

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups