grosen@ucsbcsl.UUCP (Mark Grosen) (04/30/87)
I am about to start developing some SW for a hardware project on
a PC and would like to use a windowing library. Has anyone
used any of the many packages I see advertised in mag's like
Dr. Dobb's? Greenleaf, Vermont, Essential, etc. are some of
the ones I have seen. I would like to be able to do both
text and graphics, but I do not know if this is possible.
I would appreciate any comments/criticisms/flames/praises
about any of the packages available. They must work with
Microsoft C V4.0.
Thanks in advance.
Mark Grosen UUCP:{ucbvax,sdcsvax}!ucsbcsl!grosen
ECE Dept.
Univ. of Calif.
Santa Barbara, CA 93106japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) (05/03/87)
>a PC and would like to use a windowing library. Has anyone >used any of the many packages I see advertised in mag's like >Dr. Dobb's? Greenleaf, Vermont, Essential, etc. are some of >the ones I have seen. I would like to be able to do both >text and graphics, but I do not know if this is possible. > >Mark Grosen UUCP:{ucbvax,sdcsvax}!ucsbcsl!grosen I have used and can recommend highly Phoenix's PforCe library. It not only has object oriented windows but also comm, low level graphics, field entry, and B-tree routines. The version I received from Phoenix was for MSC 3.0 but the source is provided and will function as is or recompile with 4.0. There is also a functional windowing system for MSC in shareware. Windows 4 C is availible for either Lattice or MSC. It does not support graphics as is but the price sure is right. You can get it off our BBS at (303) 273-3989. There is also a graphics, sound, mouse, joystick library for MSC availible on the CSM BBS system. Joe Applegate - Colorado School of Mines Computing Center {seismo, hplabs}!hao!isis!csm9a!japplega or SYSOP @ M.O.M. AI BBS - (303) 273-3989 - 300/1200/2400 8-N-1 24 hrs. *** UNIX is a philosophy, not an operating system *** *** BUT it is a registered trademark of AT&T, so get off my back ***
skip@ubvax.UUCP (Stayton D Addison Jr) (05/09/87)
> a PC and would like to use a windowing library. Has anyone > used any of the many packages I see advertised in mag's like > Dr. Dobb's? Greenleaf, Vermont, Essential, etc. are some of > the ones I have seen. I would like to be able to do both > text and graphics, but I do not know if this is possible. > > Mark Grosen UUCP:{ucbvax,sdcsvax}!ucsbcsl!grosen I don't get it. Why not just use MS-Windows? The upfront costs are probably somewhat higher, but the whole (D)OS(/2) is moving towards heavier use of MS Windows. It would seem that you'll just be re-writing your application for MS Windows in another 18 months. -- Skip Addison {lll-crg, decwrl, ihnp4}!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!skip or sun!amd!ubvax!skip
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (05/11/87)
>> a PC and would like to use a windowing library. Has anyone >> used any of the many packages I see advertised ... > >I don't get it. Why not just use MS-Windows? That's EASY. Who wants to write applications that will only run on a machine running windows?! If I write a program, I want it to run on ANY PC. Windows is FAR from being a widely-used standard. Not only that, but WINDOWS takes an AMAZING amount of main memory! I certainly wouldn't run windows on my XT clone! I wonder how many people really run windows all the time: damn few, probably. Most real applications DONT use windows: windows just gets in the way! OK, I'll admit that with protected-mode windows (or OS/2) there will be PLENTY of memory space, and the overhead of WINDOWS (or OS/2) will be a drop in the bucket: But that doesn't help all us 8088 users! Besides, it's all vaporware right now!
alab@ur-tut.UUCP (Daniel F. Luna) (05/12/87)
In article <4008@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >>I don't get it. Why not just use MS-Windows? > >That's EASY. Who wants to write applications that will only run on >a machine running windows?! If I write a program, I want it to run >on ANY PC. Windows is FAR from being a widely-used standard. I have a package from Blaise Computing. It has several windows routines. I have not used it yet, but it appears to be free-standing. It is part of their C tools plus (I think that there is also a Pascal version). The source code for these routines is provided as well, so one can find out how to manage these things, and make any changes which will make the application work best for you. I am not affiliated with them in any way, except for being a satisfied customer. -- Daniel F. Luna PC-Person. uucp: ...rochester!ur-tut!alab arpa: ur-tut!alab@rochester
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (05/13/87)
In article <4008@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >Who wants to write applications that will only run on >a machine running windows?! If I write a program, I want it to run >on ANY PC. Windows is FAR from being a widely-used standard. Correct. Windows, unlike many other real standards, is not a SPECIFICATION but an IMPLEMENTATION. The difference is critical. There is only one source for Windows. And, if the rumor is true that Microsoft pays Apple a royalty for the use of windows and icons, there may never BE another software package that has the same interface. Software written for Windows could be locking itself into a proprietary interface over which the software author has little control. -- Rahul Dhesi ARPA: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
skip@ubvax.UUCP (Stayton D Addison Jr) (05/14/87)
In article <598@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > ... >Software written for Windows could be locking itself into a proprietary >interface over which the software author has little control. >-- >Rahul Dhesi >ARPA: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu >UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi But Microsoft has made it abundantly clear that Windows is becoming part of the operating system. The proprietary interface is no more or less proprietary than the "C>" prompt and command.com. What's the difference (in terms of proprietary-ness) between writing to specific locations in the PC to acess screen memory directly (as most of the successful programs do) and writing to Windows for compatibility with future releases of DOS? Yes, I realize that our friendly "C>" :-) prompt will still be around for a while, but users wanting a smooth windowing interface will be looking for MS-Windows specifically. When you pick a windowing interface you're making a large commitment time-wise to it. It's clear (no pun) that the user interface for DOS will be MS-Windows. It may be more effort now, but why plan on re-writing the code in <2 years? I guess I am thinking primarily of commercial products for a commercial market. The story may be different for others. -- Skip Addison UNGERMANN-BASS, INC. {lll-crg, decwrl, ihnp4}!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!skip or sun!amd!ubvax!skip
zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) (05/18/87)
In article <1169@ubvax.UUCP> skip@ubvax.UUCP (Stayton D Addison Jr) writes: >I guess I am thinking primarily of commercial products for a commercial >market. The story may be different for others. Did you ever see a SUCCESSFULL program running under MS-Windows ? Most (if not all) successfull programms write directly to the screen because of performance reasons. And Windows is that damned slow. Which user will go for a package which runs under MS-Windows if he can have something equivalent in terms of functionality, but a lot faster ? Ok, software houses could stick with Windows, waiting for the next two years for OS/2 released WITH the windowing package. With a lot of luck, they will have a really successfull programm when OS/2 is out. But in the meantime, they won't earn much. ...urs UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu BITNET: K261819 @ CHZHRZU1A No employer, no disclaimer
rps@homxc.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (05/19/87)
In article <90@bernina.UUCP>, zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) writes: > Did you ever see a SUCCESSFULL program running under MS-Windows ? > Most (if not all) successfull programms write directly to the screen > because of performance reasons. And Windows is that damned slow. Which > user will go for a package which runs under MS-Windows if he can have > something equivalent in terms of functionality, but a lot faster ? > Ditto! I lived with MS Windows on a ATT 6300+ (7.2 on the Norton SI) and found it to be barely fast enough, and NO SOFTWARE!. With Windows you get Write and Paint (like Mac Write and Paint), a terminal emulator and the utilities that Sidekick provides (except for the ASCII table). These things run properly under windows but Write is slow in scrolling. Getting anything else to work is torture and if you do, you usually have to set it up so that windows is swapped out of memory anyway. Russ Sharples homxc!rps NOTE: The above in NO WAY reflects the opinions of AT&T. These opinions are my own and the results of un-scientific and highly irregular analysis methods.
pre1@sphinx.UUCP (05/20/87)
In article <90@bernina.UUCP> zu@bernina.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) writes: >In article <1169@ubvax.UUCP> skip@ubvax.UUCP (Stayton D Addison Jr) writes: >>I guess I am thinking primarily of commercial products for a commercial >>market. The story may be different for others. > >[deleted text] >Ok, software houses could stick with Windows, waiting for the next two years >for OS/2 released WITH the windowing package. With a lot of luck, they will >have a really successfull programm when OS/2 is out. But in the meantime, >they won't earn much. > ...urs >UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu >BITNET: K261819 @ CHZHRZU1A If I understand it correctly, just because a package has been developed under the Windows interface doesn't even mean that it will work under OS/2! This is presumably Microsoft's rational in charging $3000 for an OS/2 development kit. First Microsoft has people buy the things to develop under Windows and then they say that what they have is barely acceptable and that they had better look at spending a LOT more $$$ to get the OS/2 development kit and a new machine from IBM. Not the sort of thing that standards are made of. On top of that, only large corporations and people interested in networking are going to switch to OS/2 right away. For the vast majority of the true "personal" computer user, there is no real incentive to leave the old PC or AT and move to OS/2. Who needs such a memory hog on a personal computer that will never be tied to another computer except by a modem and that has no real need to run multiple tasks at once? There will certainly be a market for the new OS with businesses and developers, but it won't make anywhere near the imact that we saw with DOS 2.x/3.x in terms of installed base, certainly not for many years. Stay away from windows. The above is entirely personal opinion for which no one is to be held responsible. (Including the author - it is actually just a glitch in the line I never said that). -- =====================Grant Prellwitz========================== !ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!pre1 pre1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP 76474,2121 (CIS) pre1 (BIX) The DOCTOR didn't need a funny line, why do I?