Don't get me wrong, I dislike Microsoft intensely, and find it a pain to develop for at work (am a big Linux fan both for development and general use), but am using WTL on both home and work projects to great effect.
It's a good project and I'm finally glad that Nenad and the team have been able to get the suits to make it more open than it was before.
After all, most ATL applications (probably most modern Win32 apps!) are actually using WTL in some form, even if they don't know it.... ATLControls.h (part of a code sample back in 1996 from MS is widely used in commercial apps, but is actually from Nenad, (the WTL author) and eventually migrated into atlctrls.h in WTL(!)
Looks like they've just pointed a double barrelled gun at their feet. If they were trying to avoid wholesale migration away to either: - Google's Gmail OR - Novell's MyRealEmail....
On my main system (triple boot, XP Pro, 98Se, Mdk 10, a PIII 600 with 768MB RAM), the patch was a definite improvement, faster bootup, better USB and nicer (Win2000 ish) UI.
On my parents system (dual boot, 2000/98SE, PII 300), it screwed up 98 so badly that it wouldn't boot and so I had to reinstall.
So go figure.
I'd used the earlier 1.1 and 1.2 patches on my own system as well previously with success..
Having read the article, this "revolution" seems little different from using masses of assert macros in your code (a practice I strongly endorse). This seems far from being a revolutionary idea and makes me think.... Errr.... If you've got one machine working correctly which you are checking against.... then errr... why bother writing a second instance of the program....? Or have I missed the point!
I've tried 2.4.0 for a while now and am loving it
with one exception:
I can't get the joystick support working for
my Gravis Xterminator in my SB PCI 128.
I can get it fine under 2.2.17, 2.2.18 and 2.2.19
pre, but not 2.4.0 (xmame just ain't the same
without it!)
But otherwise it's lovely.... It is discernably
faster in use than 2.2.18(ish) which itself
is discernably quicker than the early 2.2.x
series.
At one point I thought that the Internet's
whole reason for being was to provide(at USA's
request) a system that could survive critical
problems (eg.in the event of war), by dynamically
rerouting etc.
If that is so, why do we have these problems?
Forgive me if I'm naive
Mike
Downloaded both yesterday.
Win32 version is actually quite good.
But the Linux version is TERRIBLE.
It's hard to believe (esp as a developer)
that they are from the same codebase...
Under Linux it crashes more often than 4.76
(I didn't that was possible!)
and Java support neither works, nor does the
ability to download the java support.
Terrible. Why can't they package Java in
the Linux version like they did for Win32
rather than relying on d/ling a plug in, given the prevelance of Java these days.
It greatly saddens me to see just how
poor the Linux version is.
Slashdot Mirror
I greatly welcome this news.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike Microsoft intensely, and find it a pain to develop for at work (am a big Linux fan both for development and general use), but am using WTL on both home and work projects to great effect.
It's a good project and I'm finally glad that
Nenad and the team have been able to get the suits to make it more open than it was before.
After all, most ATL applications (probably most modern Win32 apps!) are actually using WTL in some form, even if they don't know it....
ATLControls.h (part of a code sample back in 1996
from MS is widely used in commercial apps, but is actually from Nenad, (the WTL author) and eventually migrated into atlctrls.h in WTL(!)
Mike
Looks like they've just pointed a double barrelled gun at their feet. If they were trying to avoid wholesale migration away to either:
- Google's Gmail OR
- Novell's MyRealEmail....
Then this is a f***ing dozey way to do it!
I've tried this patch with mixed results:
On my main system (triple boot, XP Pro, 98Se, Mdk 10, a PIII 600 with 768MB RAM), the patch was a definite improvement, faster bootup, better USB and nicer (Win2000 ish) UI.
On my parents system (dual boot, 2000/98SE, PII 300), it screwed up 98 so badly that it wouldn't boot and so I had to reinstall.
So go figure.
I'd used the earlier 1.1 and 1.2 patches on my own system as well previously with success..
Having read the article, this "revolution" seems little different from using masses of assert macros in your code (a practice I strongly endorse).
This seems far from being a revolutionary idea
and makes me think....
Errr....
If you've got one machine working correctly which you are checking against.... then errr...
why bother writing a second instance of the program....?
Or have I missed the point!
I've tried 2.4.0 for a while now and am loving it
with one exception:
I can't get the joystick support working for
my Gravis Xterminator in my SB PCI 128.
I can get it fine under 2.2.17, 2.2.18 and 2.2.19
pre, but not 2.4.0 (xmame just ain't the same
without it!)
But otherwise it's lovely.... It is discernably
faster in use than 2.2.18(ish) which itself
is discernably quicker than the early 2.2.x
series.
At one point I thought that the Internet's whole reason for being was to provide(at USA's request) a system that could survive critical problems (eg.in the event of war), by dynamically rerouting etc. If that is so, why do we have these problems? Forgive me if I'm naive Mike
Downloaded both yesterday. Win32 version is actually quite good. But the Linux version is TERRIBLE. It's hard to believe (esp as a developer) that they are from the same codebase... Under Linux it crashes more often than 4.76 (I didn't that was possible!) and Java support neither works, nor does the ability to download the java support. Terrible. Why can't they package Java in the Linux version like they did for Win32 rather than relying on d/ling a plug in, given the prevelance of Java these days. It greatly saddens me to see just how poor the Linux version is.