I must be one of those "half brain" guy

[Patrice Terrier]

Jim,

I see that your last post has been removed from another forum.

About 64-bit i am with you, and i am also one of those "half brain" guy, because i need it right now, five years after C programmers seems enough to me.
Should we wait more than 10 years like for COM?



...

[Mark Smit]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. There are tools that allow you to develop for 64-bit platforms already...

[Patrice Terrier]

The fuss, is for those of us who have written commercial addon with it.

That's a strange strategy for a commercial company to force some of us to move to another language, especialy in the case of the thread  "you talk... and we listen".

...

[Mark Smit]

I understand what you're saying, and can certainly appreciate the "investment" you've made. I was in the same boat myself.

You could also see it as overly optimistic to put all your "eggs in one basket" like this. Especially if you consider the company in question's reputation. They make great products but they are a little late out of the gate on some features. If you need bleeding edge then this may not have been the best choice for development tools.

I realize that doesn't help you but perhaps it may help someone else reading these forums.

It sure would be nice to own some exotic car but sometimes it's just easier and less frustrating if you just buy what ever one else is driving

[Patrice Terrier]

Mark

I do not put all my "eggs in one basket", for example i am also a WinDev and C# programmer, however i can't write true native DLL(s) with C# because of the extra dot.NET framework, that changes every three years or so. About WinDev, its syntax is very close to PB, making very easy for me to port my code between the two platforms, but WinDev is p-code, not a true compiler.

As for the portability i am using only pure SDK, thus i could convert GDImage and WinLIFT to plain C using VISUAL STUDIO, but this would take me monthes and monthes work. I would rather add new features than to perform the translation, because programming is also a hobby for me.

If it would be only for money, or for glory, i know i would have better to move to C, but basic was my first language, and when i go to bed i am dreaming in Basic not in C.

...

[Brice Manuel]

I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Patrice.  At the end of the day, when running a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows, your 32-bit program will run under emulation.  Unfortunately, the emulation is not 100% perfect.

The official "outlook" from PB is not surprising when you consider that they still sell a DOS compiler and cater to older versions of Windows with the newer compilers.  Not everybody is in a position to be able to target a market where really old systems are in routine use.  My target demographic certainly does not fit that category 

[Bob Zale]

...the emulation is not 100% perfect...

By all means, please show us this imperfect emulation?  How about a demonstration?

Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.

[Patrice Terrier]

Bob,

Emulation or Wow64 is not the problem.

The address space being not the same between 32 and 64-bit, it is almost impossible to write 32-bit code that would deal directly with the underlaying OS.

And when you are a third party addon provider, being unable to provide a 64-bit version of your DLL is a serious limitation when people themselves are accustomed to use C, C++ or dot.NET in 64-bit, since several years.

This is my concern, and what i would express in a "listen to me" thread.

Now if i could make another request, that would be for "Android", because that's the way an increasing part of the programming market is going.

...

[Brice Manuel]

By all means, please show us this imperfect emulation?  How about a demonstration?

Here is the official word from MS:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee418798(VS.85).aspx

Please note where it says:

Sixty-four-bit Windows operating systems are binary compatible with the IA32 architecture, and the majority of APIs that 32-bit applications use are available through the Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit Emulator, WOW64.

Bolding is mine.  Please note it says the majority of the APIs (not all, only the majority) used by 32-bit apps will work.  Some APIs are simply not available under emulation.  If something doesn't work 100% of the time, it is not 100% perfect.  Even MS admits the emulation isn't 100% perfect, Bob.

Windows on Windows 64 is just as problematic as Windows on Windows was when we were all trying to support our 16-bit software when people started running it under '95.  Like WoW, WoW64 has got better with time.  However, you need to remember that MS always targets compatibility instead of compliancy.  Some things just do not work properly under the emulation layer.  Yes, the instances are rare, but to pretend they do not exist is disingenuous.  

Taking WoW/WoW64 out of the equation, there are always incompatibilities between OS versions and some software will not always work properly on the next OS that comes out no matter what compatibility settings are used.

MS isn't stupid and realizes the need for backward compatibility.  MS's solution has been to do what they do best and buy up the companies and products that specialize in what they need so they can get the job done and make the changes/improvements needed.  MS has been buying up virtualization-specific companies since 2003.  I have lost count: Connectix, Kidaro, Calista (off the top of my head)

MS' problem has always been providing backwards support without bloating the OS.  7 was a huge step in the right direction.  XP mode works great  I firmly believe XP mode is MS's future for backward compatibility.  Imagine how streamlined the OS could become if backwards compatibility is stripped from the core OS.  

Back on topic... Bob, you realize the coming need for 64-bit.  Yes, it isn't needed by the majority of PB users, but there is a small percentage of us who can't wait to get our hands on it and we are happy to know that PB will offer 64-bit support at some point in the future.

[Brice Manuel]

Another point on Patrice's behalf (not that he needs my help) is he has a different target demographic than most PB users.  When you are dealing with graphics and especially high-end graphics, spec-wise this is almost the same demographic as 3D video games.

This is a demographic that has largely outgrown the limitations of 32-bit architecture and routinely encounters problems.  This is happening to the AAA developers as well as increasingly to indie developers and this has been a topic of discussion at the major conferences for a couple of years.

I can easily imagine that Patrice is dealing with similar issues due to the advanced nature of his graphics software.

[Edwin Knoppert]

A c#/.NET programmer is not interested in unmanaged code or libraries, his interest is to work with .NET.
Using an unmanaged part will bite him sooner or later.

> that changes every three years or so.
That's barely (to none) true since it's backawards compatible to v1.4 at this time (where at v4 now).
At least bw compatible with v2 which is the base for all but v4 frameworks.
(+ intermixing v2 compiled assemblies work just fine with v4 projects)

If you want to do graphics use your skills and do them as supposed to do.., in the language of the end-programmer.
With .NET the use of generic libraries as we know it has come to an end.
PInvoke support is only their to make existing things running, not for new development.
You'll have massive issues regarding security and compatibility like the problem mentioned here: 32bit and 64bit.
A .NET assembly compiled 'as any', runs on 32bit and 64bit unless you had unmanaged code to a 32bit generic dll.
You force the end programmer to stay on 32bits because of some generic dll.

If you wish to read what i foresee as the future read my (simple) topic about WPF:

WPF and Silverlight - The future?
http://www.hellobasic.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl?board=general;action=display;num=1274473654

[Patrice Terrier]

Edwin

I do not force anybody to use my DLL(s), that's the programmers responsability to ensure that they will fit their needs.
This is the reason why i provide unlimited trial versions and many examples showing how to use them.
http://www.csharpfr.com/codes/CAROUSEL-3D-ANIMATION_41278.aspx

Anyway your remarks are out of topic.

...

[Edwin Knoppert]

>Anyway your remarks are out of topic.
Pfft, i was trying to give you an hint.
Good luck

[Bob Zale]

"If something doesn't work 100% of the time, it is not 100% perfect."


Well, then, let's see if I really understand you...

1-  There may be a few deprecated 32-bit API's in Win7/64.  (Can you name just a couple of them without scouring the 'net first?)
2-  I guess it follows that this has never happened before in another Windows release?
3-  If true, that might be described as a "bug"?
4-  I guess it follows that this has never happened before in another Windows release?
5-  There have been zero (0) reports of PowerBASIC failures on Win7/64 (My personal statement of fact).
6-  But you're content to suggest (or imply) publicly that 32-bit PowerBASIC programs won't run correctly on this imperfect platform?
7-  But you are absolutely confident that all 64-bit code will execute perfectly on this 100% perfect 64-bit platform?

Best regards,

Bob Zale

[Bob Zale]

Emulation or Wow64 is not the problem.

Of course not.  Everyone has their own set of problems based upon their personal wants, needs, and desires.  Some folks here think we are "less than perfect" because we offer a DOS compiler for those folks who need one.  Others seem to think we have an imperfect reputation.  You want to create 64-bit DLL's, yet you've never sent us a single email to discuss it.  Maybe if we can get everybody riled up enough, they'll storm the PowerBASIC offices with torches at Midnight?  {smile}

Seriously, I've confirmed several times that there will be a 64-bit version of PowerBASIC.  You know that.  But, at this point, I'm not prepared to make further public statements (other than the fact that only a tiny percentage of our customers need it, and would buy it, today).

Thanks for listening.

Best regards,

Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.