emuleomo@paul.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) (06/11/90)
Hi world, I am about to embark on my 1st taste of windows programming! Any recommendations on GOOD BOOKS to read that will give me a good intro? --Thanx --Emuleomo O.O. (emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu) -- Remember! It does'nt matter if you win or lose, as long as you win!
pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) (06/11/90)
In article <Jun.10.13.35.20.1990.21696@paul.rutgers.edu> emuleomo@paul.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) writes: >Hi world, > >I am about to embark on my 1st taste of windows programming! Any >recommendations on GOOD BOOKS to read that will give me a good intro? > >--Thanx > >--Emuleomo O.O. (emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu) >-- >Remember! It does'nt matter if you win or lose, as long as you win! _Programming Windows_ by Charles Petzold, published by Microsoft Press. This is the complete, orthodox treatment of Windows programming. It's not cheap, but not much is left out, either. BTW- some sort of book is almost essential for Windows, since the documentation from Microsoft is little more than a reference manual, with little tutorial material. Don Pajerek
ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) (06/11/90)
From article <1990Jun10.213822.22056@usenet@kadsma>, by pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek): > _Programming Windows_ by Charles Petzold, published by Microsoft Press. > This is the complete, orthodox treatment of Windows programming. It's > not cheap, but not much is left out, either. > > BTW- some sort of book is almost essential for Windows, since the > documentation from Microsoft is little more than a reference manual, > with little tutorial material. Well, major question ... is the SDK needed to get to the API? I have not looked at programming it at all, but since I am on 286 (I already have Windows 3.0 installed) I need to exploit standard (protected) mode to do multitasking with my own applications. Thanks for any suggestions. Drew Derbyshire Internet: ahd@kendra.kew.com Snail mail: 108 Decatur St, Apt 9 Voice: 617-641-3739 Arlington, MA 02174
pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) (06/11/90)
In article <1990Jun10.232459.28297@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes: >Well, major question ... is the SDK needed to get to the API? I have >not looked at programming it at all, but since I am on 286 (I already >have Windows 3.0 installed) I need to exploit standard (protected) mode >to do multitasking with my own applications. > >Drew Derbyshire Yes, you do need the SDK. And make sure, when placing your order, that you get the new 3.0 SDK, and not an old 2.0 version that is still sitting on the shelf. Don Pajerek
bturner@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Bill Turner) (06/12/90)
> Well, major question ... is the SDK needed to get to the API? I have > not looked at programming it at all, but since I am on 286 (I already > have Windows 3.0 installed) I need to exploit standard (protected) mode > to do multitasking with my own applications. Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. The .exe file format for Windows is not the standard DOS format (it is an extension), so a different linker is required [Anybody know if LINK4 is available outside the Win SDK?]. Also, there are other tools required that the SDK provides. --Bill Turner (bturner@hp-pcd.hp.com) HP Interface Technology Operation
ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) (06/12/90)
From article <1990Jun11.110735.13581@usenet@kadsma>, by pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek): > In article <1990Jun10.232459.28297@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes: >>Well, major question ... is the SDK needed to get to the API? > > Yes, you do need the SDK. And make sure, when placing your order, > that you get the new 3.0 SDK, and not an old 2.0 version that is > still sitting on the shelf. Okay everyone, write down this number: 1-800-323-3577 Which is the toll free "Windows Hot Line" (Product Information). Now call them (you may have to ask for department L21, but I did NOT) and tell them to tell their manager and HIS/HER manager that if they want people to write cheap software for Windows, they have to drop the price of the Windows SDK (System Development Kit). Be warned, you could be on hold a while ... but it's their phone bill. :-) In my case, I was going to port UUPC, which is a freeware UUCP style mailer, to Windows. However, I'm not going to speed $500 for the SDK, the Microsoft quoted price, just so I can multitask my mailer on a 286 box. When I called, I talked to a very nice person. My advice is to be nice, and be SPECIFIC as to your use of the SDK if it cost a reasonable price; they won't have reason to listen to people who abusive or not serious. Finally, dump this post on five fellow programmers and have THEM call. Drew Derbyshire Internet: ahd@kendra.kew.com Snail mail: 108 Decatur St, Apt 9 Voice: 617-641-3739 Arlington, MA 02174
todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) (06/12/90)
In article <1990Jun12.010850.17716@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes: >Which is the toll free "Windows Hot Line" (Product Information). Now >call them (you may have to ask for department L21, but I did NOT) and >tell them to tell their manager and HIS/HER manager that if they want >people to write cheap software for Windows, they have to drop the price >of the Windows SDK (System Development Kit). Be warned, you could be >on hold a while ... but it's their phone bill. :-) On a related note.. Perhaps those of you with Borland connections can encourage them to get a low-cost ($100 to $150?) Windows development kit out for Borland Turbo C++. After getting my upgrade to Turbo C++, I decided not to upgrade to Microsoft C 6.0. This is the environment I would prefer to do my Windows programming in if I could! I think that if Borland came out with a Windows Dev kit, then it might force Microsoft to reconsider their SDK pricing strategy...todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (06/12/90)
In article <1990Jun12.010850.17716@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes: >Okay everyone, write down this number: > > 1-800-323-3577 > >Which is the toll free "Windows Hot Line" (Product Information). Now >call them (you may have to ask for department L21, but I did NOT) and >tell them to tell their manager and HIS/HER manager that if they want >people to write cheap software for Windows, they have to drop the price >of the Windows SDK (System Development Kit). Be warned, you could be >on hold a while ... but it's their phone bill. :-) > >Drew Derbyshire > >Internet: ahd@kendra.kew.com Snail mail: 108 Decatur St, Apt 9 >Voice: 617-641-3739 Arlington, MA 02174 Don't waste your or MicroSoft's time, or for that matter other real users time trying to get hold of MicroSoft for legitament purposes. If you saw what came in the MicroSoft development kit, you would understand why they charge $500 dollars. By the way, you can get it mail order for about $325 the last time I checked. Grow Up! If you don't like the price, don't buy! One last thing, when competition for Windows programming heats up, you will see the price come down. -Dean Wallwey
pearce@hpccc.HP.COM (Lori Pearce) (06/12/90)
>Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. The .exe file format for Windows >is not the standard DOS format (it is an extension), so a different linker >is required [Anybody know if LINK4 is available outside the Win SDK?]. Also, >there are other tools required that the SDK provides. Install C5.1 or later and make sure to install the OS/2 stuff. You will get the proper linker (called LINK, not LINK4) Link4 no longer comes with the SDK. --------------------------------------------------- | Lori Pearce, pearce@hpccc.hp.com, 408-773-7694 | "You wouldn't worry so much | Hewlett-Packard, Mail Stop 81UO | about what other people | Santa Clara Information Systems Division (SSD) | thought if you realized | 3410 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051 | how seldom they do." --------------------------------------------------- Standard Disclaimer applies...until I come up with a better one.
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (06/12/90)
In article <1990Jun11.110735.13581@usenet@kadsma> pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Don Pajerek) writes: }In article <1990Jun10.232459.28297@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) writes: }>Well, major question ... is the SDK needed to get to the API? } }Yes, you do need the SDK. And make sure, when placing your order, }that you get the new 3.0 SDK, and not an old 2.0 version that is }still sitting on the shelf. Au Contraire. You can also use any of the other tools available for creation Windows 3.0 applications. Our product, Actor, is the only tool other than the SDK, that allows direct access to the Windows API function calls. We also give you a lot of pre-existing Windows code and an interactive development environment that makes Windows programming pretty easy. If you (or anyone) want more info just give me an address and phone number and I'll send it on it's way. -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (06/13/90)
In article <22139@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes:
... If you saw what came in the MicroSoft development kit, you
would understand why they charge $500 dollars.
I have, and I don't. They're trying to rip off us programmers. You know,
the people who cause *other* people to buy Windows. I understand that they
shouldn't give it away. But they could *at most* sell it for the price
of the materials.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemswallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (06/13/90)
In article <NELSON.90Jun12132554@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >....I understand that they >shouldn't give it away. But they could *at most* sell it for the price >of the materials. > >-- >--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 >Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems MicroSoft isn't in software just for us programmers or to see Windows to become popular(although they would like it very much). They are in it to make a profit! The amount of money(and time) that MS has put into the Windows SDK warrents that it be somewhat expensive. Also MicroSoft will charge what they think the market will accept. (That is--The market that they want to sell to...) As far as costs go, the manuals that came with my SDK 2.1, are probably worth $100 alone! Another thing is that MicroSoft has spent alot of money trying to get the SDK to the point where it is today.(granted it still could be alot better!) The way that it should be paid for is by those who use it--the developers, not the users of windows, for they already have large enough costs as it is with the applications software. They shouldn't have to pay for your and my development utilities. Also the ~$325 mail order price is actually very good considering what can be done with it! You can do alot more with the ~325 SDK kit than you can do say with comparable priced software like Lotus 1-2-3 ver 3.0 or Excel or Word for Windows, etc. You have to think of it just as another application and a powerful one at that! Another thing that the price does for MSWindows is make sure that only serious people use the development kit. MSWindows programming, although not impossible, is not for the 'Average joe'. This way MicroSoft can design the SDK and have their support for the "Big Guns" rather than hundreds of thousands of programmers. I know this sounds elitist, but I think this is how MicroSoft views the world. You did make one good point, and that was that MicroSoft (and programmers for that matter) would benifit from the increased amount Windows code and Programms floating around if more people had access (afford) to write Windows programs. Of course the same could be said of MicroSoft C. Why not give that away free, and have more users be able to write DOS and OS/2 programs? Because people will buy it if they have to! My $0.02 worth...Maybe less... -Dean Wallwey
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (06/13/90)
In article <22165@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: >In article <NELSON.90Jun12132554@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >>....I understand that they >>shouldn't give it away. But they could *at most* sell it for the price >>of the materials. > >MicroSoft isn't in software just for us programmers or to see Windows to >become popular(although they would like it very much). They are in it >to make a profit! The amount of money(and time) that MS has put into the >Windows SDK warrents that it be somewhat expensive. Also MicroSoft will >charge what they think the market will accept. (That is--The market >that they want to sell to...) > >As far as costs go, the manuals that came with my SDK 2.1, are probably >worth $100 alone! Hogwash. Disks cost about $1.00 apiece. These is one manual worth anything at all - $20. So it should sell for roughly $60. > The way that it should be paid for is by >those who use it--the developers, not the users of windows, for they >already have large enough costs as it is with the applications software. >They shouldn't have to pay for your and my development utilities. > The point is that morew programs make Windows sell more. >Also the ~$325 mail order price is actually very good considering what >can be done with it! You can do alot more with the ~325 SDK kit than >you can do say with comparable priced software like Lotus 1-2-3 ver 3.0 >or Excel or Word for Windows, etc. You have to think of it just as >another application and a powerful one at that! Well, considering that a large fraction of the software I use daily costs exactly $0.00 ............... > >Another thing that the price does for MSWindows is make sure that only >serious people use the development kit. MSWindows programming, although >not impossible, is not for the 'Average joe'. This way MicroSoft can >design the SDK and have their support for the "Big Guns" rather than >hundreds of thousands of programmers. I know this sounds elitist, but I >think this is how MicroSoft views the world. > Problem is that that is not how the world works. A large part of popularity comes from making things - uhhhh - "popular" rather than the opposite. Also, I point out that Microsoft DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WINDOWS SDK per se. If you buy it they give you **ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT AT ALL**. Their price is awfully high for a complex piece of stuff sold with absolutely no support. (If you disbelive me, try calling them with a question - they will laugh at you - "IF you want support, pay us another thousand bucks". Doug McDonald
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (06/13/90)
In article <22165@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes:
You did make one good point, and that was that MicroSoft (and
programmers for that matter) would benifit from the increased
amount Windows code and Programms floating around if more people
had access (afford) to write Windows programs. Of course the same
could be said of MicroSoft C. Why not give that away free, and
have more users be able to write DOS and OS/2 programs? Because
people will buy it if they have to!
Many, many machines come bundled with DOS. Therefore, Microsoft has
little to gain from more DOS programs. Perhaps the reason OS/2 is a flop
is precisely because there are not enough free programs for it.
In other words, I agree with you. The way to sell an OS is to give away
the programming tools for it.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemsmcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (06/13/90)
In article <NELSON.90Jun12230207@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >In other words, I agree with you. The way to sell an OS is to give away >the programming tools for it. > True. This has indeed been tried - IBM gave me and many others PS/2's (I got a Model 80) and MSC and the Windows SDK in return for getting us to write some sort of teaching program. My program has sold exactly one copy. Of course, that doesn't count the ones I gave away..... This did not really win the PS/2 (nor Windows 2.11) any great press. When people found out how much more memory cost for the PS/2's, how few cards were available for the microchannel bus, and how much more they cost .... well, I recommend Dell. It also showed that Windows programming is hard to learn. But, indeed, it has produced people who can program for Windows. I eventually came up with a genuine NEED for a genuine Windows program (the teaching one really doesn't need Windows, it was already windowed and event driven...) and was able to write it. It has become quite popular (free). So freebies can result in good - or bad - press. Doug McDonald
reyn@trsvax.UUCP (06/13/90)
Why is it that programmers think nothing of spending $4000.00 on a
computer, but are totally offended at spending $325.00 for a Windows 3.0
development kit? ( This is the price at SoftWareHouse in Dallas )
I do wish that there was a less expensive way of writing apps for windows.
My first IBM P.C. apps were written with a $49.95 copy or Borland's Turbo
Pascal, and I think the minimum you can get away with for Windows is around
$700.00. I would hope that an inexpensive "Quick C" sort of development
option becomes available, something which allows you to use Menu Bars and
Dialog Boxes, but is in some rational way limited ( Small Model programs
maybe ).
As for the SDK price, consider that a Tandy DeskMate SDK is around $295.00
the MetaWindows Plus library is $289.00, the HALO WIndows toolkit is
$495.00, you get the idea. Don't be too critical of MicroSoft just because
Bill Gates is rich, the other guys are charging comparable fees for
comparable products.
John Reynolds
Standard Disclaimers Applypoffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/13/90)
In article <NELSON.90Jun12230207@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >In article <22165@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: > > You did make one good point, and that was that MicroSoft (and > programmers for that matter) would benifit from the increased > amount Windows code and Programms floating around if more people > had access (afford) to write Windows programs. Of course the same > could be said of MicroSoft C. Why not give that away free, and > have more users be able to write DOS and OS/2 programs? Because > people will buy it if they have to! > >Many, many machines come bundled with DOS. Therefore, Microsoft has >little to gain from more DOS programs. Perhaps the reason OS/2 is a flop >is precisely because there are not enough free programs for it. > >In other words, I agree with you. The way to sell an OS is to give away >the programming tools for it. > >-- >--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 >Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems Unfortunately even the traditional OS's may be changing. Sunos (BSD unix) used to include a C compiler with the OS. While it is still bundled with the latest release (4.1), it is the same old piece of crap compiler they have always had. It is non-ANSI compliant. If you want a REAL C compiler, now you have to pay for it separately. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (06/14/90)
In article <1990Jun13.154100.14607@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes:
Unfortunately even the traditional OS's may be changing. Sunos (BSD
unix) used to include a C compiler with the OS. While it is still
bundled with the latest release (4.1), it is the same old piece of
crap compiler they have always had. It is non-ANSI compliant. If
you want a REAL C compiler, now you have to pay for it separately.
Yup, you have to pay for a tape from the Free Software Foundation,
or if you can FTP, you FTP a copy of gcc from prep.ai.mit.edu. Compile
it with your grody old compiler, and viola, a modern ANSI compiler,
complete with source.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemspoffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/14/90)
In article <NELSON.90Jun13202620@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >In article <1990Jun13.154100.14607@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: > > Unfortunately even the traditional OS's may be changing. Sunos (BSD > unix) used to include a C compiler with the OS. While it is still > bundled with the latest release (4.1), it is the same old piece of > crap compiler they have always had. It is non-ANSI compliant. If > you want a REAL C compiler, now you have to pay for it separately. > >Yup, you have to pay for a tape from the Free Software Foundation, >or if you can FTP, you FTP a copy of gcc from prep.ai.mit.edu. Compile >it with your grody old compiler, and viola, a modern ANSI compiler, >complete with source. > Yes, we have gcc and g++. If you can't get it from ftp, then at least the cost of buying it is for media and handling only, a couple hundred bucks, not the $1200 Sun wants FOR EACH LICENSE. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (06/27/90)
In article <1615@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >The cost of buying what is needed to do software development on the Mac (taking >full advantage of the Mac GUI) is a LOT less than for Windows, yet I'd argue >that the software took about as much to develop. > >Note that they might consider keeping the SDK at its current price, >but giving away the library and include files with Quick C (or selling >them for a more reasonable price to Quick C owners who want to play around >with Windows programming but can't afford (and perhaps don't need) the full >SDK). This may be a naive question, but just how large and complex are the library and .h files? How long would it take a "clean room" developer to write a legal clone of them? It seems to me that this could be a great boon to Windows, if there was a way for the hackers and hobbyists to access the application interface without having to fork out the price of the SDK. A few months ago I asked on this group whether there were any such libraries available, and found out that there aren't, other than Actor, which is a full language and environment, not just a library. I am interested in Actor, and as soon as I get my copy of Windows 3, I think I will order Actor. -- John Dudeck "I always ask them, How well do jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu you want it tested?" ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 -- D. Stearns
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (02/11/91)
In article <12123@ur-cc.UUCP>, dubs_cif@troi.cc.rochester.edu (/* Jeremy DuBois */) writes: > > I like windows lots, but I dunno C. I have no money for SDK. Can you > make windows programs like k00l games and stuff with basic? can somebody > give me some lists for how to make windwos things? You can't really do much with Basic under Windows - you can run it in DOS mode, which doesn't look too bad if you are running on a 386, but for 286 and 8088 machines it only works full-screen (like any other DOS program). Offhand I'm not sure that there are very many Basic's that would be reasonable to use for programming Windows, even in principle, if you are using the SDK. You need to be able to manipulate some data types that most Basic's don't have (pointers and such). There are rumors of a Microsoft Basic product in development that will run under Windows as a native Windows app. How much Windows a program written in this Basic would be able to do (as opposed to how much the Basic interpreter/compiler is integrated into the Windows environment) is an open question. The only alternatives to the SDK are to wait to see what Borland announces this week (which may or may not help much, depending on when it will be available and whether you still have to use the SDK), or to look at something like Actor (but development environments like this are usually not cheap). Sorry, but in the current state of the world Windows programming is expen$ive. That may change soon. > oh, also, how come windows goes really slow when there are like ten > copies of paintbrush running? is there a trick to fix this? cause I > like to have lots of k00l pictures on the screen so I just load 'em up > in paintbrush but then things go real sluggy. You've just run out of memory or some other system resource. Most likely memory if you have ten copies of Paintbrush running: Paintbrush is a real memory hog. As you note Windows does not handle this situation quite as nicely as it might - it tends to hit a "wall" rather than degrade gracefully. In fairness, this is a hard problem; but other operating systems have addressed it better than Windows does. Sometimes other things can run out - especially if you are running some public domain or shareware programs. I've played around with a lot of the PD/SW programs for Windows, and an awful lot of them are very buggy. Lots of them have memory leaks (allocate memory but never free it), or resource leaks (such as allocating handles but never freeing them - handles are a special system resource that are managed separately from the main memory area). Even some commercial software for Windows has problems like this, but there's very little of the PD/SW software for Windows that isn't riddled with bugs. Not to say that there aren't a few gems out there, but they are few and far between. The trick to fix it is either get more memory or don't run so many copies of Paintbrush. Or else try to determine which program is leaking your memory away if you're running a lot of PD/SW code ... Bruce C. Wright