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? Richard Stringer wrote: 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. So essentially, there is no dispute here. Let me explain. Even as you provide irrelevant details, you admit, less available power due to torque converter. Why you ask are the details you mentioned irrelevant? Power Steering comes on cars w/ both auto transmission, and manual transmissions correct? And, you could reduce your tire pressure on a manual transmission or an automatic transmission, correct? Sure both of these things you mention will effect the available power. BUT, may I point out that these things would effect available power on EITHER configuration equally and have nothing to do w/ the debate of manual vs. auto transmissions. Do you not understand power steering takes away power from both auto. or manual tranny cars, and how that detail you provided is irrelevant to the dispute at hand, as well as your tire pressure assertion?? 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. Richard Stringer wrote: 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 BS? 30-40 years ago?? LOL. I think your bias is showing clear now. Auto has MORE moving parts. No BS involved. Care to dispute? The more computer controlled it gets, the more service frig

Override WndProc and handle the WM_SIZING (0x0214) message. This is sent to a window procedure (and keep in mind that almost all Windows Forms controls encapsulate native controls and dialogs) before being resized. The Message.WParam specifies the edge that is being resized and the Message.LParam specifies the RECT (which you must define in managed code - a System.Drawing.Rectangle will not suffice because it stores coordinates differently). Set the Message.Result to new IntPtr(1) to signal that you've processed it and don't want your Form to be resized. Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles

Ultraedit-32. I use it to edit just about everything I don't have a good IDE for, and I often use it to make quick edits. It has a customizable language tagging system; there are a *lot* of languages supported (see the list here[^]). Simply download the wordfiles you need and get cranking. The find-replace (can be deadly) and macro functions are very good too. It is an excellent notepad and hex-editor replacement. http://www.ultraedit.com/[^]

Duh, I should have thought about that. :sigh: For some reason the standard .config completely slipped my mind. Thanks very much Heath. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams

Samick make half decent cheapo guitars nowadays. All you really need is to make sure the action is not too high ( that is, the gap between the strings and the fretboard ) and that when you fret notes up and down the guitar, you don't get any buzz. An electric would be easier for a first guitar, because it would be easier to play ( lighter strings, lower action ), but it depends really on what you want to do with it. You can't strum an electric around a campfire, or play Robert Johnson/John Lee Hooker songs convincingly. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder

Really? Do you remember where you went by chance? All the places I looked at were deep sea fishing trips for $400 - $600. That's a bit more than I was looking to spend (by "a bit", I mean about $300 - $500)

yep, it's great :) likes most of what I do so we can play together. Just got a neighbor recently that does networking. We get along good also. Have a wireless network that spans our apartments and we play lan games all the time.

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. The derived calculations on that particular program are loaded in by an engineer, who writes his derived calcs. in C#. However, that is only done once at the beginning of the program, then loaded in memory as a seperate assembly (all using the Code-DOM). The new version does the same thing using .dll's, etc. The real-time part of the program though is basically a message, data, timing pump that just pulls the data, fires processing if necessary and pumps it back on schedule. No 'cool' techniques really inside of either version. You said: You'll still be able to write and use unmanaged C++ programs on Longhorn, IIRC. The new Avalon GUI system is .NET-only, but your data collection and manipulation code is in a separate process already, right? Is that so? I really haven't heard that. I read that there would be an entirely new Windows API, (not Win32) and I thought that the new API was built on .NET. If that's not true and it will just be an updated API that we can interface with natively, that will be better than .NET managed under the hood. Granted, it's impossible to get true real-time out of Windows anyway since it has a 12 millisec. window it may or may not hit for your instructions, but with .NET under the hood, even our soft real-time stuff would probably have to be ported. Do you know of any references to this subject (Real-time references, new Longhorn API, etc.?) that might be helpful to me? Brian