If you find out an answer let me know. I have the same problem. It seems like it should list all of the virtual functions of my base class, but it does not list any.

Yea, I got the same e-mail from Dundas yesterday. They included a form with a spot for my credit card number but did not mention how much the upgrade cost!

Well, I posted another message to the BCG forum regarding concern about their silence on SE updates. They deleted it and also deleted my original post. Feel free to post them regarding your questions, but I doubt if they will listen. Steve

An e-mail has directed me to this thread regarding the BCG library. I too am a registered, paid, customer of the SE edition. I also posted the original message on the BCG forum about SE upgrades. Why BCG does not want to answer my question makes no sense. It seems clear that the SE version will no longer get regular updates, so why not just admit it? Why hide the truth? BCG has stated that there is only one programmer (S.L.) behind the BCG library. He has, apparently, decided to focus his efforts on the professional version. I could "upgrade" to the professional version, but at $599.00 it seems overpriced. The Standard Edition is only $299. And the professional version has never had regular updates. Has anyone switched from BCG to another library that they think is better?

Try this. It works for me. From Steve. MSHTML::IHTMLElementPtr spEle; MSHTML::IHTMLDocument2Ptr spDoc2; CString sHtml; sHtml = "some HTML text here"; // get spDoc2 from CHtmlView spDoc2 = m_pBrowserApp->get_Document( (IDispatch**)&spDoc2 ); if ( spDoc2 == NULL ) return; spEle = spDoc2->Getbody(); if ( spEle == NULL ) return; spEle->PutinnerHTML( (LPCTSTR)sHtml );

I have to agree. Of all the security alerts, not one of them, resulted in an interception of an attack and no attacks happened. Makes you question the credibility of these security alerts. Still, better to be safe than sorry.

No responses to this post leads me to believe that the Code Project $799 offer for the non-upgrade version of Visual Studio.net is not what we need. Most of us want to UPGRADE to Visual Studio.net. The $195.99 offer from Programers Paradise may be the best deal,

Programmers Paradise has the Visual Studio.net Professional upgrade for $195.99 after a $300 rebate. Any better offers out there? Do not quite understand why Code Project is offering the full version of Visual Studio.net for $799, when most of us only need the upgrade, and we do not need the "extras" from Dundas and Wintellect. Perhaps Code Project can give us a great deal on the upgrade too?

Since almost everyone interested in CodeProject already has a version of Visual C++, why does CodeProject only offer the non-upgrade version of Visual Studio.net for $799? The upgrade price for Visual Studio.net, professional version, is $195.99 after rebate, from Programmers Paradise.

Thanks!

I am sure this has been discussed before but I am not sure where. I have the following questions about VC++ 7.0 .NET. 1. How large is the .NET runtime needed to run .Net programs? Do we need to include it with our products, like we do with dll's? 2. Does anyone have a comment as to whether the .NET runtime slows down their .exe programs? 3. How much slower is the VC++ 7.0 .Net compiler than the VC++ 6.0 version? Does it require more memory or faster processor? Looking for some hands on experience. Thanks for your help. Steve Quick E-Mail: therecreation@earthlink.net

The user interface is important. You should investigate user interfaces best suited to your program and your users. Then you can decide on a tool that provides the UI you want. If you do not know the principles behind good user interface design, then you may produce a bad user interface no matter what tool you use.

Currently the new articles are grouped into "Last Ten updates" and "Unedited entries", with "new", "updated" or "moved" in parenthesis. When I go to The Code Project the first thing I want to know is what are the "new" articles, both edited and non-edited. I have no interest in what has been "moved" and some interest in what has been "updated". So I suggest the following. 1. Instead of the current two groups "Last Ten updates" and "Unedited entries" make three groups. a. The first group would be "Last Ten New updates" and would include only "new" articles, both edited and non-edited. Perhaps with "edited" or "non-edited" in parenthesis. b. Second group would be all the "updated" articles. c. Third group would be all the "moved" articles. This grouping would present the articles in the order of inportance to me. I would guess that others feel the same. Any comments?