Perhaps I can offer some answers.. As for the first question, the VS .NET version, especially the 2003 which I have, offer a much more flexible and working integration systems that simplify coding quite much. For example, the clumsy ClassWizard has been removed, and instead, every MFC class is considered a standard C++ class, and there is a 'properties' bar for it from which you can override virtual functions, create Windows message and event maps and so on. Generally speaking, my coding time has improved some and I can now focus more on the content itself as I don't need to worry about buggy CW files or missing virtual functions, which was a common error during the VS 6.0 times. I was constantly deleting and remaking the CW files. Also, the VS .NET is much more flexible. The Class Bar has improved a lot, making it possible to e.x. add your own classes to the list of MFC base classes. Like, if you were to derive a custom control and would like to derive again from this control, you can move the files in question to a special directory, and then you can create descendants, override virtual functions and do custom implementation easily by using the Class View and it's properties-page. For the second question, no, not really. The MFC/ATL/WTL libraries shipped with either the Standard or Professional editons are the same, version 7. The biggest source of differencies comes from the functionality of the IDE and the optimization/customization options of the compiler/linker. The Professional version compiler, for example, is capable of doing much greater level of optimization routines and compile-time code manipulation than the Standard version one. As a final note, if you have enough money to invest, I suggest you go for the Professional, or even better, the Architect version. You can read more about the differences between seperate versions from the VS .NET homepage located in here[^]. -Antti Keskinen ---------------------------------------------- The definition of impossible is strictly dependant on what we think is possible.
