- It's all about performance.
- It's all about productivity.
- It's all about functionality.
- Want More Information? Click Below...
|
TECHNOLOGY COMMENT
|
|
|
Well, as far as Borland C++ Builder goes, it's blindingly good technology. So are Microsoft's DirectX SDK's. They are both "best of breed" technologies. ... By seamlessly blending these two technologies together, the TDx_Library just makes it all incredibly simple, incredibly powerful, mind-numbing actually. This technology, the TDx_Library, is years ahead of anything ever invented before. It's "best of breed" too, only better. ... So, what is better? DirectX 7.0a DirectX 8 DirectX 9.0c DirectX 10? A: Well, it all depends on what you need really... DirectX 7.0a is fantastic, it works on all Windows platforms, ie. 95,98,ME,CE,NT,2000,XP,VISTA. DirectX 8 is buggy, it does not work with C++ Builder at all. DirectX 9.0c is fantastic, it works on Windows XP only and Vista, it does not work with C++ Builder at all. DirectX 10 is only for Windows Vista, so it's no help right now, as Vista is still buggy as all hell, it does not work with C++ Builder at all. Of the two products we would consider fantastic, DirectX 7.0a and DirectX 9.0c, we've already converted the DirectX 7.0a SDK into >WORKING< RAD VCL component libraries for BCB, so that's pretty good. DirectX 7.0a covers 2D+3D Graphics, Sound FX+Music+Recording, Force-Feedback Devices, MultiUser Networking. DirectX 9.0c covers almost exactly the same things, but it's 2D graphics capabilities are exactly the same as in DirectX 7.0a, and it has no multi-user networking support. Both DirectX 7.0a and DirectX 9.0c contain additional functionality not in the other SDK. Me personally, I prefer the DirectX 7.0a SDK, because I find it's much easier to learn, it works with BCB, it's much easier to navigate the help files, much easier to develop with, quicker, stronger, and more robust. ... So, what is better? COM Programming Win32 Programming RAD/VCL Programming A: Well, depends on what you are good at really. If you are good at anything, then RAD/VCL is by far the easiest to use, the quickest, and is capable of producing the most results. If you are fantastic at COM or Win32 programming, then maybe you could stick with those, or you could try something new. The future is all about RAD development, so the C++ Builder VCL wins hands down, in terms of ease-of-use and programmer productivity. ... So, what about C++ Builder? C++ Builder v1 C++ Builder v3 C++ Builder v4 C++ Builder v5 C++ Builder v6 C++ Builder BDS 2006 A: Well, really, any version of C++ Builder is better than any other compiler. BDS 2006 requires Windows XP, although BCB v1..v6 work on any Windows version. Having tried all flavours of C++ Builder, I tend to prefer C++ Builder v1, because it's the most simplest and quickest. As more functionality has been added to the various versions of C++ Builder, I've noticed that i spend most of my time doing RAD DirectX, which is identical on all compilers, including BDS 2006. ... So, what about Windows? Windows 95,98,ME Windows CE Windows NT,2000 Windows XP Windows Vista A: We have never really used Windows CE, 2000, Vista, we just know our software works perfectly on these platforms, because it's exactly the same code, and executables. This means we know our software definately works on Windows 95,98,ME, and Windows NT,XP. Having tried all flavours of Windows, I tend to prefer Windows ME, because it's the most simplest and by far the quickest, and by far the most stable. I have spent countless hours rebuilding my Windows XP development pc (for the thousandth time), only to find it will not even boot without an install CD, and even when it shuts down normally, it usually forgets how to reboot next time i turn on the computer. XP is the slowest, most cumbersome, and most buggy operating system I have ever used in my life. Although, over time, it has proven fairly reliable ultimately... but it's still slow as all hell. Compared to a Windows ME pc, which has not been reformatted for years, and which works perfectly, no problems ever except old hardware failing from overuse. This entire website, The TDx_Library and the BCB_Code_Generator were originally developed on Windows ME. XP is simply too buggy for serious work, and it takes over two minutes to boot a dual-pentium 3.0 Ghz compared to the less than 20 seconds it takes to reboot an old 1.8 GHz Windows ME pc. Considering how many times a professional programmer has to reboot their computer, over 2 minutes each time, compared to less than 20 seconds each time. Over a few days, this adds up to hours wasted on the XP pc... just waiting for it to reboot after a crash... ... What it all boils down to is :- I regularly use all versions of C++ Builder and Windows ME, XP, and DirectX 7.0a and DirectX 9.0c. I have previously used Windows 95, 98 and NT extensively. I have not yet used Vista. My Personal Choice after years of experimentation is that C++ Builder and DirectX 7 work best on Windows ME or XP. The original DirectX 9 SDK's were compatible with Windows ME, but version 9.0c is not compatible with Windows ME at all, only working on XP. When using Windows ME, I find that C++ Builder v1 is best and DirectX 7.0a is best. When using Windows XP, I find that C++ Builder v1 is best and DirectX 7.0a or 9.0c is best.
|
||