Re: 64-bit Windows for AMD 64 is here...

From: aLBi (why_do_we_at_need.this)
Date: 03/15/04 

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:04 +0000

>I see. The commitment that didn't update MFC for years, that changed
>VB.NET so much that it broke a lot, etc.?

I am sure that you have never done a commercial application in VB6. That
development platform had reached its end. Visual Basic was in full
opposition to the market requirements. VB. NET was the most respectful
thing MS could have done for its customers.
MFC was not upgraded, that is true. However, do not confuse MFC with VCL.
MFC's role is to act as a platform which software built upon it would be
easier to maintain and improve. Thats why to write smth. on-screen you
still use 80% of the API functions; that is why multithreading is almost
as annoying on MFC as on WinAPI; that is why there is no Text1.Text on
MFC. On the other hand, VCL's job is to completely hide the API from the
developer. What I mean is that MFC's update is not very necessary.
Take a look at the Paint Shop Pro 8 interface. It uses MFC 4, but do you
find it outdated?

>> Indeed, the opposition to the redesigned VB .NET has been so little and
>> has faded so soon that no one would dare now blame Microsoft for the
>> change.
>
>Hmmm... I have heard different stories.

Please, lets not argue on this. I would greatly appreciate though if a
programmer that has earned his living with VB6 and now switched to VB .NET
would write his opinion.

>> MS is also pushing Windows back. Can you see the big picture here? I
>> can't say this is a good thing for the users.
>
>But you say they are committed? <g>

Sorry, with "user" I meant the "end-user", the one who uses our software.
My mistake.

>> But I hope you agree with me that Microsoft's way is a safer way to go.
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not. They have let their custmers down before.

They might have been unable to meet engagements years ago because they did
not have enough power, but now its another story. When Microsoft stubles,
the world pauses too ;)

>> Because Borland does not plan to release a 64bit Delphi compiler.
>
>You don't know that. But anyway, if they's plan to, you would not have it
>now anyway.

---Yes, I do not know anything about the future of Delphi!

>> I cannot afford spending time learning how to do conversion to 64bit in
>> Assembly.
>
>Oh, if you need it now, it is a little late to ask Borland. <g>

---Yes, it is too late!!!

And here is where Microsoft shines. With MS you can be prepared for your
next 5 yrs of life because you know not only where they are heading to,
but also where will they be. Why do you think has Microsoft fully descibed
all the features of an OS and a development environment that are to be
released in 2+ years? Why did Intel show its plans up to the year 2009?
Why has nVidia for years released a new product every 6 months *always*?
Why did AMD give full details about K8 4 years before its release? Why
have Sony told the world every aspect of the PS3 architecture?
   -> BECAUSE WE NEED TO PLAN AHEAD!

And what is Borland doing? The Delphi for .NET Preview that shipped with
Delphi 7 was not even an alpha. It was more like a demo. Completely
useless. But it demostrated it clear what Borland had in its plans: a
native compiler with full support for the .NET. That Preview was a very
wise move for Borland. Developers had a secure future ahead. Than a big
hit came when Delphi 8 had no Win32 support at all. Developers were caught
unprepared. No other corporation has done such an unannounced shift
before. Developers who trusted their career to Delphi for its speed and
features were caught unprepared. And, of course, for most of them it was
"too late" to go back. But now its even worse. We "do not know anything
about the future of Delphi". It would be a much better situation if
Borland admitted that next versions of Delphi will be for .NET only. At
least we would be prepared (well, you, not me, I have changed religion
already). As they say "Get ready for the worse...", but at least be ready!
Not like this. I find the small PowerBASIC company much more secure than
Borland, because they have clear thoughts about the future of their
products and offer something original... small, but original. (and do not
rely on the products of their bigger competitor :P

I found it hard, 't was hard to find.
Oh well, whatever, nevermind.

--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A case for Microsoft
    ... specifically Delphi. ... set (in the meeting to make the decision, the developers' comments were ... "Borland looks like it is back on track" and "if they would stop wasting ... If you've used D2005 or D2006 and VS Studio - you know that the IDE ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • A case for Microsoft
    ... I have been a Borland fan since turbo Pascal and paradox. ... specifically Delphi. ... set (in the meeting to make the decision, the developers' comments were ... The decision to sell the IDE products (which ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?
    ... how many Delphi developers are thinking about moving to M$ ... Visual Studio and C# rather then staying with Borland Delphi 2005? ... looks like Borland is doing more work for M$ then for their own products. ... but it could ONLY compile Win32 applications. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
  • Re: Delphi 2005 Update 4 IS needed !!!
    ... I use a lot of 3rd party tools and am not doing much that requires web ... version just to make sure Borland didn't go completely out of business, ... I am wondering how many Delphi developers are in the same situation as ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Delphi 8 ... is it a worthy investment?
    ... the directions Borland has taken is effecting people personally. ... are solo developers - ... That puts a lot of Borland's customers in the same position as me. ... Up until Delphi 6 this was not really an issue - it was always easy to ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)