Page 1 of 4
VB.Net Sucks - - PureBasic Works :-)
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:03 am
by Randy Walker
Most of you have probably clicked on the link that accompanies all of my posts. Well I still stand by those words.
A coworker was telling me how great her VB.Net was and I was telling her how Bill Gates was an ASS. (Not yelling here ... it's just that Bill Gates is a really big ASS). So here's what I did. I compliled the following code in PureBasic and had her complie something (didn't see her source) that was supposed to be exactly comparable:
Code: Select all
If OpenWindow(0, 100, 200, 600, 400, #PB_Window_MinimizeGadget, "PureBasic - Gadget Demonstration")
If CreateGadgetList(WindowID())
ButtonGadget(1, 223, 20, 72, 20, "Play")
EndIf
Repeat
EventID = WaitWindowEvent()
Until EventID = #PB_EventCloseWindow
EndIf
End
A very simple window with a button that does absolutely nothing. Mine was 12KB and runs on every Windows XP box we try it on (of course!).
Hers on the other hand is 1KB smaller ... BUT, it does NOT run on every XP box we try it on (no surprise ... Bill Gates is an ASS!)
Anyone have any idea why this VB.Net compiled exe of hers only runs on some XPs? (Other than being the byproduct of a really giant ASS.)
Thanks,
Randy
Re: VB.Net Sucks - - PureBasic Works :-)
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:19 am
by PB
> Mine was 12KB
> Hers on the other hand is 1KB smaller
So hers is 11 KB... well I just created the exe with v4.00 beta 6 and it comes
to exactly 10.5 KB, so PureBasic is the winner when it comes to exe size!
Plus it runs on all versions of XP... tell her to ditch .NET and get PureBasic.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:28 am
by netmaestro
And hers needs a 23mb .net framework to run... it has a .exe extension but it isn't a real native .exe. It's managed code.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:09 am
by USCode
Yep, it's as netmaestro said, the bulk of her functionality is in the .NET framework so very little needs to be in the executable itself but as was said it IS managed code so the performance won't be there.
However, I think the days of bulky .exe's from Microsoft are over with .NET. Vista will be distributed with .NET 2.0 and the other new frameworks which in a sense are the new "Win32" (and some parts of .NET are built on top of Win32, some isn't).
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:14 am
by PB
> Vista will be distributed with .NET 2.0
Hehehe, I love how Microsoft assumes everybody will be installing Vista. :roll:
I know all my non-tech friends and family are still using either Win 98 or ME,
with a few using XP Home. None of them are going to install .NET as they
have absolutely no need for it. They're just browsing, typing docs, doing the
budget, and editing pictures. Everyone who uses .NET for their apps is going
to miss out on this massive group of potential customers. Too bad.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:06 am
by USCode
PB wrote:Hehehe, I love how Microsoft assumes everybody will be installing Vista. :roll:
Yeah really, and also I believe the hardware requirements are rather extensive to really take advantage of it's capabilities?
I wonder why Microsoft doesn't release .NET as a critical update for XP at least. Granted, it isn't "critical" but it would be a surefire way to get the framework distributed. Right now it's just an "optional" software update.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:02 am
by Fangbeast
Microsoft released a spec chart for Vista specifications because they have been caught before.
Apparently, vista willl 'step down' its' requirements based on the hardware that it is running on so that more people could be running it. Of course; if you are running older hardware; you won't get all the eye candy.
I remember when XP first came out and told us how much hardware we'd have to buy and my heart broke because I didn't have a job. Then I installed it on a 250Mhz P1 with 160Meg of ram, something that nearly all 'XP' experts flatly refused to beleive that it could do and it ran quite well. Not fast, but well.
I'd like to run Vista because of the new file system which is getting very unix like in it's approach. I believe that many people don't realise that XP; to a small degree; already uses that approach internally and drive letters are only maintained for the token human.
Re: VB.Net Sucks - - PureBasic Works :-)
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:29 am
by Randy Walker
PB wrote:... tell her to ditch .NET and get PureBasic.
She's appearently taking a VB class so I told her it would probably be good experience and to make the best of it. Then I continued to rag on it.
Thanks for the explaination everyone!!
No wonder hers didn't run ... I deliberatly avoided the .net framework option at the Window Update site.
VB.Net Sucks - - PureBasic Works
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:41 am
by blueznl
Fangbeast wrote:
I remember when XP first came out and told us how much hardware we'd have to buy and my heart broke because I didn't have a job. Then I installed it on a 250Mhz P1 with 160Meg of ram, something that nearly all 'XP' experts flatly refused to beleive that it could do and it ran quite well. Not fast, but well.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bluez/datatalk/lowgo.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bluez/datatalk/lo ... clocked_p1
p1 225 with 128 mb
but euh... it didn't do much, the secret is in the ram i suppose, 128 was clearly not enough, the tests i did showed 192 as minimum for xp
just for fun (it's not listed on the page) i tried win2000 on some machines, although it at first appeared to work better with 128 mb than xp, in practial use it actually slowed down... xp does a little smarter caching thing i guess, but i'm not sure, i have not tested it long enough to be a 100% sure
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:43 am
by blueznl
well, many people will go for vista as the !#$%^&*()! at ms will only deliver latest directx for vista, thus all gamers will make the switch at a certain point in time...
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:46 am
by Fangbeast
You are right, something it is doing with memory. I was astounded to note that XP ran faster on the old P1 than either windows 98 or windows 2000. Made an old laptop suddenly very useful again.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:28 am
by PB
> many people will go for vista as the !#$%^&*()! at ms will only deliver
> latest directx for vista, thus all gamers will make the switch at a certain
> point in time
I was waiting for mention of gaming.
My thought: Xbox 360 for games.
I have the original Xbox, and haven't used my PC for games for years now.
Microsoft may shoot themselves in the foot if they keep pushing the Xbox as
the ultimate gaming platform, because nobody will need a P4 at 3.2 ghz with
Vista and latest DirectX just to browse, type letters, do the budget, etc.
Then again, people are stupid.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:14 am
by blueznl
you may have a point there
dunno about games... oh i *love* to play them, especially red alert 2 (nothing beats the frantic style of that one) and guild wars (serious addiction over here) both do need pc's (though not vista or dx10)
you may be right, consoles may be the way to go, i'm even considering buying a ps2 (why not? they're getting cheaper and cheaper
) and a revolution (when / if it ever comes)
that, together with the planned arcade (mame) cabinet is going to keep me busy for a long time
(yeah, plans are ready, buttons etc. are ordered, wood's ready in the shack, that mame cabinet is gonna' come!)
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:37 pm
by Shannara
Umm .. If people actually used any of the .NET languages as they were designed for ... web designing, duh ... lol, it whips PB's butt. Anything else, it's junk.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:52 pm
by yoxola
Oneday I saw that MS stated .NET apps can works on any platform(maybe I'm wrong or the topic mislead me), but eventually it's not, .NET is just another bloated M$ product, VB Runtime is annoying enough and now they have the new big runtimes(as .NET 2.0 seems not compatible with 1.1), must worse than java for me(at least JRE can be found for many platforms)
PB is ideal for create stand alone apps IMHO, and generate very small executable, the v4 is even more powerful so I will stick with PB(and Blitz)