Teen Programmers Unite  


Return to forum top

Difference in VC++ Editions?

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 17, 2002, 05:26:54 PM

Okay, checking the prices for MS VC++ I've found that as a start, VC++ Standard looks quite alright. The thing is, I'm wondering what the main difference is between Standard, and the rest (I can see the difference between the 3 largest editions on their site)?

Also, I can choose between VC++ 6 and VC++ .NET. Which one is best? I'm assuming the .NET one comes with integrated XML support, or something like that, but I don't want it if it only uses C# and doesn't allow C/C++ any longer (no I haven't really looked further into this stuff, as I can't find it on MS' page).

I want to pay for the software, I just don't want to pay more than I have to, atleast not until I have to. :)

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 07:40:57 AM

The editions higher than standard (Enterprise, profesional, ect.) all come with optermising compillers. Unless you want to distribuate your apps professionaly, stick with standard or dev C++

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 09:03:42 AM

So, say that I personally buy a VC++ Standard, and then program something. If that proves to be something useful and sellable, then if my boss buys a Pro/Ent Edition I should be able to compile it on there, optimized, with little or no changes to the source? :)

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 01:57:36 PM

WTF! Charge more money for something as a simple as AND OPTIMIZING COMPILER! What kind of crack is MS smoking...Just get GCC and some free IDE...GCC 3.1 has _much_ better C++ support than VC++ anyway.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 03:39:20 PM

Maybe so, but I'm going to fiddle with DirectX, and after asking a friend of mine (who's one of the best programmers I know), he's told me that being a native MS software, VC++ has better support when you're programming DX.

And please don't give me any crap about how I should use OGL or SDL cuz I'm learning DirectX right now, not OGL or SDL...

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 08:10:45 PM

Maybe for DirectX, but for general programming GCC 3.1 has much better C99 and C++ support. And yes, you should be using OpenGL ... 2.0 is going to be done real soon now (tm) and will destroy everything DirectX has (basically everything is gone and all that you have in OpenGL 2.0 is the shader language. Everything is built on the shading language and is much more flexible than anything else). You really should quit learning DirectX and do OpenGL instead because OpenGL is a _standard_ that is portable ... whereas DirectX is controlled my Microsoft and Microsoft alone. If Microsoft decides to kill DirectX...

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 08:12:46 PM

Gawds.. It's like talking to a door..

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 08:18:00 PM

I am merely speaking the truth. Open Standards are _better_. OpenGL 1.0 is compatible with OpenGL 1.3. Is DirectX 7 completely compatible with 8? ... OpenGL is stable and tested. It was created by the likes of SGI. SGI knows what it is doing. Microsoft releases a new major release of DirectX every wednesday and forces people to rewrite a lot of code. Yes, OpenGL 1.x is very stagnant, but wait until OpenGL 2.0 comes out. Much more flexible and powerful without having to break compatibility with every new release. And with OpenGL your programs can run on almost every machine made, from a lowly SGI Indy to Windows to GNU/Linux to OS X. Portability is good. Being tied to one platform is the worse thing you can do to yourself.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 08:19:32 PM

Generally, I'm using DirectX since that's what the book about game programming I have uses, then once I get all the basics about the designs and implementation of various technologies, I can look into portable libraries, which I *will*, just not till I get all the basics in place first..

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 08:24:10 PM

What is the difference between using OpenGL or DirectX to learn the basics? There are a lot of very good books on OpenGL (go to opengl.org for a nice list) that are probably better than the book you have.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 18, 2002, 08:30:46 PM

Oh yeah, I *definately* want to go pay a fortune for a book that tells me the exact same as this one does, only using a different language.. Good books on programming are a rarity here, so I'm happy to have found one that doesn't just tell me "do this" and "do that" to get a good game, but explains the whole process from beginning to end, with everything from writing the initial design document, over the basics of control, networking (TCP/IP), implementation of scripting languages and lots of other stuff.. It uses DirectX yes, but not in an "This is the only thing that works" kinda way...

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at May 19, 2002, 06:47:59 AM

Angel, if you want to use Dev C++, its free, and BETTER than VC++, comes WITH a FREE optimising compiler (which i have tested vs VC++ pro optimising compiler and tends to be 10 % worse for apps under 150 lines of code, but over that it does about 5% BETTER than VC++ and its free) and not only that, you get the source. So check out gamecoding uk (http://www.openrpgs.com/downloads/other/page.php near the bottom of the page) and you will find the direct X libaries for Dev c++ for free. So why buy MSVC++ when devC is better in all ways?

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at May 19, 2002, 07:01:11 AM

Oh yeah, DevC++ looks better, and doesnt use as many resorces (uses 1/4 of the HD space as VC++)

Devc++ req:
Windows 95 or higher.
32 MB of RAM.
about 30MB HD space
runs fine on my 1997 233MHz rig
cost: free

VC++ .net standard(couldn't find 6) :

Pentium II 450 MHz or faster processor
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, 2000, or XP
64 MB RAM for NT 4.0; 96 MB for 2000; 192 MB for 2000 Server; 160 MB for XP Professional
2,500 MB hard disk space (minimum of 500 MB on the system drive)
CD-ROM drive
SVGA, 256-color display
cost: 85 ($125)

Oh my good god, Looking and comparing those requirment just puts into perspective how bloated, expensive and innefficient MS products are.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 19, 2002, 10:10:15 AM

This is all very good, metamorphic, but I've already tried DevC++, and it kept f*cking up with loads of stuff. I can't exactly pinpoint what it was right now, but one of the things were something with how it handles the editing.. I believe it was the indents, but I can get it again if necessary, and check? Maybe there's a simple solution to what annoyed me. :)

Oh, and can I use DirectX with DevC++? I'm assuming I can as it should be possible on any Windows-based C++ Compiler, but as with most MS stuff you can never rely on them to follow other standards than their own. :)

Posted by vladimir_l [send private reply] at May 19, 2002, 04:20:37 PM

Another thing about .NET , it requires SP2 for Win2k to run or SP6 for NT. I didnt buy it :) ( I got it for 2 .... ) , if you lived in the uk I could give it to you. Its not worth it anyway , I thought I would try it , to see if there were any improvements : none. DevC++ is good , but if you program on C ECDK or LCC are good ( better ).


Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at May 19, 2002, 04:33:47 PM

I don't, but I live in Denmark and has loads of friends in the UK, going there atleast once a year. :)

You must be logged in to post messages and see which you have already read.

Log on
Save for later automatic logon

Register as a new user
Copyright TPU 2002. See the Credits and About TPU for more information.