johnl@walt.cc.utexas.edu (John Lange) (09/28/90)
After buying lots of software, I have come to expect affordable tech support, and even free tech support within reason from the creators of that software. At the very least, for some limited time after purchasing the product the vendor should support the user's problems. This has not been the case (to my knowledge) with the newest release of the SDK for Windows 3.0. Instead of offering support cheaply, they figure they can get away with charging $800 for a year of service. This is probably a marketing strategy on their part, and they can probably get away with it easily enough. But it doesn't make the lives of thousands of small time developers very much fun. I am wondering how others feel about this. Does anyone know if MS supports the SDK at all on (holding my breath...) USENET or other boards like Compuserve, GEnie, , PCMagnet, etc.?
leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) (09/29/90)
I use picked up the 3.0 SDK, and I have already run into this problem. It's very hard to get questions answered, even simple setup questions. I haven't loaded the software on my system yet, because I'm not sure I'm going to keep it. While in the store I didn't notice that I needed a second monitor to use the debugger. I am using a PS2 system that only has 1 full size slot and one half size slot, a P70. The full size slot is already used for a dual async board, so adding another video card is impossible. I also don't look forward to picking up a 8514 card and another monitor $$$$. I do have one serial port COM3 free to use with a dumb term, but from what I have seen this will not cut it. Is Windows Code View the only debugger that is usable? Or will I be able to still get real work done with what ever else comes with SDK? I haven't loaded the software yet, I didn't want to open all the packing if it wasn't going to be useable. Second, how much disk space do I need to install SDK? Thanks, Mark
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (10/01/90)
Mark Curtis <leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com> writes: > I use picked up the 3.0 SDK, and I have already run into this problem. > It's very hard to get questions answered, even simple setup questions. That's why we have the net! :) [Plug: vote YES for comp.windows.ms.prog- rammer!] > I haven't loaded the software on my system yet, because I'm not sure > I'm going to keep it. While in the store I didn't notice that I needed a > second monitor to use the debugger. I am using a PS2 system [...] Or > will I be able to still get real work done with what ever else comes > with SDK? Codeview for Windows requires a second monitor. Due to the design of the PS/2s (thanks IBM!), that means a 8514/A. For those of using industry- standard hardware, a monochrome adapter/monitor package can be had for well under $200. However, both SYMDEB and WDEB386 work with a serial terminal. Now, this isn't as nice as using Codeview, but it certainly works: more than just a few miniapps have been developed with SYMDEB. > Second, how much disk space do I need to install SDK? The Install program says 4.2 MB for a minimal installation (small model only, no help or sample sources) and 11.2 MB for a full version (all memory models, both helps, all sources). It also requires another 1.3 MB for temporary files during installation. At this point I'd like to say that I'm *very* impressed by SDK 3.0, as compared to SDK 2.1. The tools (SDKpaint, Dialog Editor, Font Editor, Resource compiler and so on) are eons better, the API is significantly richer, and the help interface is trule awe-inspiring! I only wish that Microsoft hadn't gone to paperback manuals... [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russell Poffenberger) (10/01/90)
In article <1990Sep28.180704.17439@wrl.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: >I use picked up the 3.0 SDK, and I have already run into this problem. >It's very hard to get questions answered, even simple setup questions. > >I haven't loaded the software on my system yet, because I'm not sure >I'm going to keep it. While in the store I didn't notice that I needed a >second monitor to use the debugger. I am using a PS2 system that >only has 1 full size slot and one half size slot, a P70. The full size >slot is already used for a dual async board, so adding another video >card is impossible. I also don't look forward to picking up a 8514 >card and another monitor $$$$. I do have one serial port COM3 free >to use with a dumb term, but from what I have seen this will not >cut it. Is Windows Code View the only debugger that is usable? Or >will I be able to still get real work done with what ever else comes >with SDK? I haven't loaded the software yet, I didn't want to open >all the packing if it wasn't going to be useable. > >Second, how much disk space do I need to install SDK? You need a second monitor to succesfully use any of the debuggers provided. Think about it, when debugging windows, the debugger takes over the entire windows kernel. That being the case, output to the windows screen is not possible. I don't know what you mean about the 8514, the second monitor only needs to be a simple monochrome monitor. I got a half card mono adapter card for $39, and a used mono monitor for $49 from a surplus store near here. It works great. Even if you don't have the monitor, you can still do debugging (sort of) by outputting messages to the screen (using TextOut) or popping up MessageBox'es with info at various places in your program. Not as thorough, but it can help. 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
leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) (10/02/90)
Thanks for the info! I loaded SDK this weekend, with two memory models S and M, plus the sample sources and quick help it used about 6.5M. I got tired of waiting for a firm answer to my questions from Microsoft, so I just loaded the software. I have a 30 day return option where I picked up the SDK. I even called the store and explained the problem and they told me to just try it out and not worry about it. So I did. Busy weekend, but I'll try and compile some of the samples this week. Thanks, Mark
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) (10/02/90)
In article <1990Oct1.164153.11563@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russell Poffenberger) writes: >In article <1990Sep28.180704.17439@wrl.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: >>...While in the store I didn't notice that I needed a >>second monitor to use the debugger. I am using a PS2 system that >>only has 1 full size slot and one half size slot, a P70. The full size >>slot is already used for a dual async board, so adding another video >>card is impossible. I also don't look forward to picking up a 8514 >>card and another monitor $$$$. >I don't know what you mean about the 8514, the second monitor only needs to be >a simple monochrome monitor. I got a half card mono adapter card for $39, and >a used mono monitor for $49 from a surplus store near here. It works great. Notice that he had a PS/2 (poor guy!). Of course there are no "half card mono adapter cards" for MCA. (Or half card anythings for MCA for that matter.) Out of curiosity, how much would people be willing to pay for an MCA Herc-compatible card? (I'm trying to convince my company that there's actually some viable market for one...) >Even if you don't have the monitor, you can still do debugging (sort of) by >outputting messages to the screen (using TextOut) or popping up MessageBox'es >with info at various places in your program. Not as thorough, but it can help. Even debugging non-Windows apps this way is often impossible. When your system just crashes for no adequately explained reason (or, in the case of Windows, you get an "Unrecoverable Application Error"), you have to go through a tremendous amount of work figuring out where the problem is, using a trial-and-error-and-recompile technique. It takes *much* more time than tracing through your program with any sort of debugger. -- Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer. UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@ames.nasa.arc.gov
peter@cbnewsc.att.com (peter.pavlovcik) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct1.164153.11563@sj.ate.slb.com>, poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russell Poffenberger) writes: > > Think about it, when debugging windows, the debugger takes over the entire > windows kernel. That being the case, output to the windows screen is not > possible. Yes, think about it. How come debuggers on other OS (for ex. dbxtool on UNIX) run in a window instead of requiring separate hardware? Anybody knows of such debugger for MS Windows?? I wouldn't be surprized if it already exists. Peter Pavlovcik, peter@cbnews.att.com
leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct1.164153.11563@sj.ate.slb.com>, poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russell Poffenberger) writes: |> In article <1990Sep28.180704.17439@wrl.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: > >I haven't loaded the software on my system yet, because I'm not sure |> >I'm going to keep it. While in the store I didn't notice that I needed a |> >second monitor to use the debugger. I am using a PS2 system that |> >only has 1 full size slot and one half size slot, a P70. The full size |> >slot is already used for a dual async board, so adding another video |> >card is impossible. I also don't look forward to picking up a 8514 |> >card and another monitor $$$$. I do have one serial port COM3 free |> >to use with a dumb term, but from what I have seen this will not |> >cut it. Is Windows Code View the only debugger that is usable? Or |> >will I be able to still get real work done with what ever else comes |> >with SDK? I haven't loaded the software yet, I didn't want to open |> >all the packing if it wasn't going to be useable. |> |> I don't know what you mean about the 8514, the second monitor only needs to be |> a simple monochrome monitor. I got a half card mono adapter card for $39, and |> a used mono monitor for $49 from a surplus store near here. It works great. |> True on an AT clone, but with a PS2 machine the only supported config is a vga "second monitor" and a 8514 "primary monitor". Using a mono card isn't possible. Even if the PS2 line allowed a cheap herc card, I don't have slots open for it. With only one full-size slot and one half-size slot expansion is limited. I'm already using the full-size slot for a dual async card. The vga hardware is built-in, so it's not like I can remove it to make room for cheaper hardware like a herc card. I loaded the disks, but so far I have been too busy with other things to really try out the SDK tools. Mark
mmshah@athena.mit.edu (Milan M Shah) (10/05/90)
WRT debugger for windows that runs in a window instead of needing extra
hardware:
I spotted an ad in one of our ad bible magazines about the debugger from
Logitech (of all people) that said it ran under PM, Windows etc. Anyone
know anything about this, and whether it runs and debugs MS Windows 3.0
code?
Milan
.spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct5.015348.25981@athena.mit.edu> mmshah@athena.mit.edu (Milan M Shah) writes: >I spotted an ad in one of our ad bible magazines about the debugger from >Logitech (of all people) that said it ran under PM, Windows etc. Anyone >know anything about this, and whether it runs and debugs MS Windows 3.0 >code? You are referring to the Multiscope Debugger for Windows. The ads appeared in June, I called them and they said that MAYBE in the fall they would have this program ready. As far as I am concerned this is vaporware, it pisses me off no end when people advertise programs they haven't written yet. Joel Spolsky spolsky@cs.yale.edu Silence = Death
ckinsman@eecs.wsu.edu (Chris Kinsman - EE major) (10/07/90)
I believe you are referring to Multiscope which has only been released for OS/2 at this point although they have been advertising a Win3 version for some time. Chris
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct2.171123.4377@cbnewsc.att.com> peter@cbnewsc.att.com (peter.pavlovcik) writes: >Yes, think about it. How come debuggers on other OS (for ex. dbxtool >on UNIX) run in a window instead of requiring separate hardware? Well, there are some good reasons for having a debugger run on a separate display. That way interacting with the debugger does not cause unintended interactions with the application being debugged. Unless the debugger did some really gross fiddling, activating the window of a window-based debugger would deactivate the window of the application under test, for example. Both are useful, certainly, but the cost of the display card and second monitor should not be too large to swallow for any moderately hardcore developer who's developing using the industry standard PC architecture. (For those of you whom Mother kind of boned, well, what did you expect?) -- -- uunet!ficc!karl (wk), uunet!sugar!karl (hm) "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum