Staredit Network

Heimdal said that his is in VB6 and yours is in C++ so he would have to recode the whole thing to make it a plugin.

If he could convert it to VB.net then I could make it easily work(I can get any managed language to work.
Actually I can get anything to work that can either be linked with C++.NET(any managed language) or exports its Functions(VB6 should be able to do this).) However I can't do it on less I know what function to call from the dll.

You should maybe discuss it with Heimdal then via MSN.

It's no difference what language you're using. You just have to know interface.

But then it would require .net 2.0 as everything you write

So? Many people should have .NET by now. I also do not believe my port of his code really requires 2.0, I believe 1.1 or 1.0 may even be able to work fine. .NET 3.0 is on it's way to XP and I believe is already in Vista.


and then either write a wrapper for the interface or convert the interface to what language your using.

But you know that there still are people who use stuff like Win98SE/2000/ME?
And who would be using Vista anytime soon? Not only that you need a high-end PC to make it run at an acceptable speed, you also can't play many games on it. Does SC even run on Vista? If so, Blizzard was lucky.

Wow spine you suprise me with your lack of knowledge on Vista and .NET


Very much, I said nothing about MOVING to .NET 3.0. I simply saying that .NET is going into the third big release and most people should have it by now.

Win98SE can get .NET 2.0.


WRONG. Even with Aero Glass enabled you can get it to run at quite a good speed with a 2.0Ghz p4, 512megs of ram, and a GeforceFX5500 on a laptop.

Turn off Aero Glass and you can get Vista to run on just about all computers that have a Dx9 graphics card. Just about all computers being sold today at any price can run Vista. Hell my moms new $300 emachines can run Vista.


Completely wrong.
Vista has compatibility with just about all older applications. I have yet to find an application of mine that wouldn't run under BETA 2.

All Blizzard games that i have tried(basically just not Wc1) worked under Vista.

In fact I have yet to hear of a game unable to run under Vista.

Well, I have read tons of articles complaining about Vista's incompatability. I wonder why that is when it is so great...

"2.0Ghz p4, 512megs of ram, and a GeforceFX5500"
You know that there are people who have a LOT less than this? My computer is only slightly better, actually.

Ok, actually I don't care a bit about Vista or .net requirency.
But unless someone proves that I get a better performance with .net, and same or better compatability, I won't use it.

1. You've read, he's experienced.
2. Those requirements are for the most tolling GUI ever created...

I've read what 100's of people have experienced.

Which is why not all computers will use Aero Glass. They can default down to Aero or down to rendering the GUI by the cpu like XP.

Just about all Dx9 gfx card can run Vista Aero Glass besides maybe a bunch of intel's integrated Dx9 GPU's who can then instead run Aero Glass.


Give me some links. Also were the for Beta 1 and Beta 2 or perhaps even earlier? Beta 2 has shown me some great compatibility. I really want to get my hands on the full version now. Even applications that i've written have all worked under Vista.


I am not asking you to use it as a designer standpoint. However that gives you no reason that ever time I bring up .NET you push the subject.

However as time goes on .NET will push past native code in terms of speed. Simple reasons really, having dynamic memory allocations\deallocations is faster than doing it statically and the program is compiled at runtime so .net can do more system-specific optimizations compared to native.

That is not saying it is faster right now. That is not me asking you to use .NET for every(or any) program you write. What it is me saying is that lay off when I bring up .NET. It is a great framework that can allows developers to make applications quicker while retaining much of the same speed as native applications. Also allows great communication between languages that use it's framework.

Although once I can get my hands on the 3.0 framework I will start doing some neat Vista-Specific programs. All rendering is done via the GPU so hey.... why not make some crazy applications with C#'s drawing functions?

link

This is but one of them (from today), but as most of the articles I read it is in German
What it says is that basically many games don't run on the currently available Vista versions, and the others are noticeably slower. It also says that you usually need twice as much RAM as you needed on XP, and you shouldn't even try the better games without a multicore chip.

Thats quite a biased source then.
Heres the problem with current Vista. The Drivers are still in a really early format. Vista drivers have to be redone from basically scratch. This makes it much easier for developers..because now they know that hey this code will either work on all Dx9/Dx10 graphic cards or it wont work on any. Your comparing the first few major drivers for Vista vs idk how many major drivers there have been for Xp from Nvidia and ATI.

ATI has yet to supply it's Open GL drivers causing them to be radically slow. ATI has slightly less Dx9 performance on Vista compared to Xp however I believe when you move towards higher resolutions Vista actually takes the crown.
Nvidia's Dx9 drivers are somewhat lacking although they have "decent" Open GL drivers. They have yet to provide a Dx10 Driver.

I do not have a multi-core chip. On Beta 2 I ran need for speed most wanted like nothing with a few slow downs. Guess what? Rc1 saw a massive increase in speed. Rc2 another huge speed improvement! The final release is even suppose to be even a little faster than Rc2. However Vista takes advantage of multi-cores even moreso than Xp could ever do.

Ram? You will only need double on the 64bit versions. Vista dumps most of it's GUI when you launch a game. This frees up a bunch of ram. You will need 128 - 256 more megs of ram tops for Vista games if any more. This is coming from people who have actually ran games like BF2 on a good system. BF2 = 2gigs max settings on Xp and Vista.

After translating that article via Google language so I could at least get the gist of it, I have to point out something:
The compatibility problems it mentioned were drivers not games or your average application. Microsoft has gone back and redone a lot of its driver code to make it all work faster and more secure. This means a lot of the old drivers wont work and may cause horrible corruption. For instance Creative Labs have yet to get a decent Vista driver out and there current one can cause blue screens.

Hell with RC1 on Anandtech a website that basically gives you the straight out facts with comparison charts and the exact machine specs they used.
Comparing Xp vs Vista on the same machine specs with an 1900XTX I believe with RC1 Vista scored 2fps lower on HL2:EP1 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA. Damn that performance indeed! That was RC1......and I hear Rc2 did much better.

I could as well, but for me 150€ is nothing I'd spend so easily. Not when Vista doesn't bring me any reasonable improvements (no, cole, don't tell me about the improvements, whatever you are going to list, it has no worth to me).

Actually this is the one thing where I wouldn't list. Besides Secruity, a bunch of new extra speed improvements that cost $ and the Search system(Although I do like the new explorer's GUI but thats preference).

I would say this is a major Vista downpoint. It simply doesn't offer enough new things for the user while providing a lot of things for the developer(especially game developers). Although Microsoft will push this to get it into computers as fast as it can by getting Dell, Emachines, HP, and the rest of them to stick it into there computers.

However nonetheless Vista is a solid OS. I am willing to argue that all day. Is it worth the money? That depends on your situtation and if you see nothing you need in it...then do not upgrade to it. It would be a waste of money.

creative not having good vista drivers is a good joke... its not like their 2k ones are any good either xD

This SCMD20.7 IS GREAT!

But, the only bug that i've found:

Each time that its crashed its says me "dump file saved at C:/DOCUM~1/XTREMD~1/ETC.....
then I click the folder but the dump file does NOT exist
Whats happen?

~XtremDinosaur

what do you mean, it crashes?