VB6 to VB.NET, comments please

[Galen Somerville]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please


"Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSP AM@.msn.comwrot e in message
news:uvhKJqBuHH A.3400@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

Hi,
>

>>>

It's interesting to note that I develope on a Pent D 940 dual-core at
3.2GHz. But our program runs at high BMP rates on older Win98 machines
with
way less power and speed.
<<
>
You have to really work hard with threading to make the dual-cores perform
(the one that I have is only a 2 GHz notebook, and it is about 30-35%
slower than the Hyperthreaded 3.2 GHz notebook it is replacing -- Vista
looks nice, but looks aren't everything). The OS (and .NET) have added so
much that gets in the way of raw performance that we have to use as much
skill as we can muster to avoid the bottlenecks. And, COM (and STAThread)
marshaling is a big bottleneck.
>
Perhaps you can investigate a native dll (or even .NET) interface to your
USB hardware. Getting away from the ActiveX interface might provide a
substantial speed improvement.
>
Dick
>
--
Richard Grier, MVP
Hard & Software
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, Fourth
Edition,
ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages, includes CD-ROM). July 2004, Revised March
2006.
See www.hardandsoftware.net for details and contact information.
>

My USB drivers are from Jungo. I originally started with the net Jungo
drivers. Now that was slooow. I got up to 0.5 BPM rate. Keep in mind that
the normal use of USB is sending/recieving large streams of data. To a
printer or from a scanner etc.

Whereas I'm getting small 24 byte bursts fairly rapidly. The printers and
scanners don't really care that a little extra time is used by net. I do.

As a side note, my proprietary USB device is 100% assembly language using a
188 type processor and a NetChip USB chip. It's fast.

Galen

[jim]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please

"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:%23GCNSUpt HHA.736@TK2MSFT NGP06.phx.gbl.. .

My application receives and displays Heart sounds and ECG's in real time.
This data comes from a proprietary USB 2.0 device. Unlike most USB
devices, this data comes in short bursts of about 24 bytes. These bursts
could come as fast as every millisecond.
>
The display of the sound and ECG traces is similar to an oscilloscope
display except a blank space of about 5 pixels is shown as it sweeps
across the screen. This means that not only is six horizontal lines drawn
for each trace, for each data burst, but the next six existing horizontal
lines have to be blanked.
>
The above equates to around 300 Heart Beats per Minute (BPM). This is
easily handled by my VB6 application.
>
Using VB2005 Pro I have attempted to convert this VB6 app. As of now I use
shared memory, an in process thread to capture data from the USB and an
ActiveX thread to interface with the USB. I have attempted to do the
drawing with GDI, DirectX, etc.
>
The best I can get is a 15 BPM heart rate.
>
I am contemplating doing the drawing in my ActiveX thread. The idea being
that all of the data capture and drawing is, in effect, being done via
VB6. But if I do this then the VB2005 portion becomes one of just showing
forms with Command buttons and Text boxes etc. But my VB6 app already does
this.
>
So my question is, what's the benefit of converting this app to VB.NET?
>
Apparently I can use the Interop Toolkit on my VB6 app instead of
converting to VB2005. What's the benefit in doing that?
>
As an aside, 99% of the customers have us buy a computer and install the
software at the factory. Then the computer is shipped to them. So no
installation problems.
>
I would appreciate any comments pro or con.
>
Thanks
>
Galen

While keeping the application in VB6 will give better performance over
interop/COM performance, MS has stated that it will no longer support VB6
after Vista. And, seeing as how MS says the next OS is slated for release
in 2009 (only a year and a half from now) it may be wise to go ahead and
bite the bullet and move away from VB6.

If .Net is too slow (and it most probably is for real time, high speed
serial device input) you may want to go with a C++ application. It's not as
easy to code, but C++ will be around for a very long time to come.

jim

[Galen Somerville]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please


"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:GNfgi.7092 $c_4.6058@bigne ws2.bellsouth.n et...

"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:%23GCNSUpt HHA.736@TK2MSFT NGP06.phx.gbl.. .

>My application receives and displays Heart sounds and ECG's in real time.
>This data comes from a proprietary USB 2.0 device. Unlike most USB
>devices, this data comes in short bursts of about 24 bytes. These bursts
>could come as fast as every millisecond.
>>
>The display of the sound and ECG traces is similar to an oscilloscope
>display except a blank space of about 5 pixels is shown as it sweeps
>across the screen. This means that not only is six horizontal lines drawn
>for each trace, for each data burst, but the next six existing horizontal
>lines have to be blanked.
>>
>The above equates to around 300 Heart Beats per Minute (BPM). This is
>easily handled by my VB6 application.
>>
>Using VB2005 Pro I have attempted to convert this VB6 app. As of now I
>use shared memory, an in process thread to capture data from the USB and
>an ActiveX thread to interface with the USB. I have attempted to do the
>drawing with GDI, DirectX, etc.
>>
>The best I can get is a 15 BPM heart rate.
>>
>I am contemplating doing the drawing in my ActiveX thread. The idea being
>that all of the data capture and drawing is, in effect, being done via
>VB6. But if I do this then the VB2005 portion becomes one of just showing
>forms with Command buttons and Text boxes etc. But my VB6 app already
>does this.
>>
>So my question is, what's the benefit of converting this app to VB.NET?
>>
>Apparently I can use the Interop Toolkit on my VB6 app instead of
>converting to VB2005. What's the benefit in doing that?
>>
>As an aside, 99% of the customers have us buy a computer and install the
>software at the factory. Then the computer is shipped to them. So no
>installation problems.
>>
>I would appreciate any comments pro or con.
>>
>Thanks
>>
>Galen

>
While keeping the application in VB6 will give better performance over
interop/COM performance, MS has stated that it will no longer support VB6
after Vista. And, seeing as how MS says the next OS is slated for release
in 2009 (only a year and a half from now) it may be wise to go ahead and
bite the bullet and move away from VB6.
>
If .Net is too slow (and it most probably is for real time, high speed
serial device input) you may want to go with a C++ application. It's not
as easy to code, but C++ will be around for a very long time to come.
>
jim
>

As I remember, they weren't going to support VB6 in Vista either. The
original apps were in assembly language with two ISA cards doing the real
time work. Then Graphics cards got better and cpu's got faster. That's when
I jumped on VB6 as it was easy to get up to speed.

Then ISA became passe and USB appeared, so I jumped on that.

I've toyed with going to C++ but it puts me back in the position of figuring
everything in detail. Hell, that's what I was doing originally in MASM. Age
comes into play also. My first program was an Infant Hearing Screener
written on an Intel ISIS system using 8085's.

Galen

[jim]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please


"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:eFEPzPFuHH A.2028@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>
"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:GNfgi.7092 $c_4.6058@bigne ws2.bellsouth.n et...

>"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
>news:%23GCNSUp tHHA.736@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..

>>My application receives and displays Heart sounds and ECG's in real
>>time. This data comes from a proprietary USB 2.0 device. Unlike most USB
>>devices, this data comes in short bursts of about 24 bytes. These bursts
>>could come as fast as every millisecond.
>>>
>>The display of the sound and ECG traces is similar to an oscilloscope
>>display except a blank space of about 5 pixels is shown as it sweeps
>>across the screen. This means that not only is six horizontal lines
>>drawn for each trace, for each data burst, but the next six existing
>>horizontal lines have to be blanked.
>>>
>>The above equates to around 300 Heart Beats per Minute (BPM). This is
>>easily handled by my VB6 application.
>>>
>>Using VB2005 Pro I have attempted to convert this VB6 app. As of now I
>>use shared memory, an in process thread to capture data from the USB and
>>an ActiveX thread to interface with the USB. I have attempted to do the
>>drawing with GDI, DirectX, etc.
>>>
>>The best I can get is a 15 BPM heart rate.
>>>
>>I am contemplating doing the drawing in my ActiveX thread. The idea
>>being that all of the data capture and drawing is, in effect, being done
>>via VB6. But if I do this then the VB2005 portion becomes one of just
>>showing forms with Command buttons and Text boxes etc. But my VB6 app
>>already does this.
>>>
>>So my question is, what's the benefit of converting this app to VB.NET?
>>>
>>Apparently I can use the Interop Toolkit on my VB6 app instead of
>>converting to VB2005. What's the benefit in doing that?
>>>
>>As an aside, 99% of the customers have us buy a computer and install the
>>software at the factory. Then the computer is shipped to them. So no
>>installatio n problems.
>>>
>>I would appreciate any comments pro or con.
>>>
>>Thanks
>>>
>>Galen

>>
>While keeping the application in VB6 will give better performance over
>interop/COM performance, MS has stated that it will no longer support VB6
>after Vista. And, seeing as how MS says the next OS is slated for
>release in 2009 (only a year and a half from now) it may be wise to go
>ahead and bite the bullet and move away from VB6.
>>
>If .Net is too slow (and it most probably is for real time, high speed
>serial device input) you may want to go with a C++ application. It's not
>as easy to code, but C++ will be around for a very long time to come.
>>
>jim
>>

As I remember, they weren't going to support VB6 in Vista either. The
original apps were in assembly language with two ISA cards doing the real
time work. Then Graphics cards got better and cpu's got faster. That's
when I jumped on VB6 as it was easy to get up to speed.
>
Then ISA became passe and USB appeared, so I jumped on that.
>
I've toyed with going to C++ but it puts me back in the position of
figuring everything in detail. Hell, that's what I was doing originally in
MASM. Age comes into play also. My first program was an Infant Hearing
Screener written on an Intel ISIS system using 8085's.
>
Galen

I feel your pain. I am 39. I taught my first programming class when I was
15 (Apple IIe and IIgs). I stopped coding 4 years ago and opened my own
business doing network administration for small to mid-sized bsinesses. It
gets boring, but it beats the hell out of coding for big companies like
Citibank, Porsche, Coca-Cola, etc. (The constant push to put apps out before
they are ready...and all that crap.)

I have been planning on doing some .Net stuff, learning C & C++...but I am
(and I think everyone gets) not so impressed with technology any more. I
look for simple, cost effective solutions. I look for things that will let
me do my job as fast as possible and go live a little.

In fact, it looks to me like the general population is tiring of the whole
technology boom. Just look at the Wii kicking the butts of Playstation and
XBox.

I've screamed about it until blood has shot out of my mouth.....peopl e just
want simple. Simple has always outsold complex, and it always will.

Simple is more cost-effective and makes greater profit margins. Simple
means fewer tech support calls. Simple means money.

But, I'll be damned if anyone is listening.

Microsoft killed the most popular programming language EVER (in terms of
coders and application base) in favor of what? .Net?

..Net was never written for programmers. It was written by Microsoft, for
Microsoft's vision of software as a service. They lied to people to try and
sell it (there NEVER was a "Dll Hell" and I can prove it). They push .Net
on programmers because they can.

(One more point and I promise....I'm off my soapbox.) And, Microsoft can
push programmers (and end users) around for one simple reason...propri etary
data formats.

Proprietary data formats make it damned near impossible (practically or
financially) for businesses to leave Microsoft or Quickbooks or AutoCAD or
thousands of other applications and move to a different app (much less a
different OS).

Things will never change until we enact legislation that enforces open data
formats. All companies that store user data should be forced by law to
publish the data formats that the data is stored in BEFORE they can sell (or
update) their software that users will use to store data. After all, it is
your data (regardless of what software package you use to compile or store
it) and it should always be your data and be portable to where ever you want
to take it.

If we enacted open data format legislation, you would see a whole new,
affordable, usable downpour of applications and OS' begin to be used in
business and home use.

Software would have to compete based on usability, features and cost
effectiveness.. ..not because the users can't easily or cost effectively port
their data to an app more suited to their needs.

(OK....ok.....I 'm stepping down now......)

[Galen Somerville]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please


"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:zSjgi.1587 8$19.5606@bigne ws5.bellsouth.n et...

>
"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:eFEPzPFuHH A.2028@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>>
>"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
>news:GNfgi.709 2$c_4.6058@bign ews2.bellsouth. net...

>>"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
>>news:%23GCNSU ptHHA.736@TK2MS FTNGP06.phx.gbl ...
>>>My application receives and displays Heart sounds and ECG's in real
>>>time. This data comes from a proprietary USB 2.0 device. Unlike most
>>>USB devices, this data comes in short bursts of about 24 bytes. These
>>>bursts could come as fast as every millisecond.
>>>>
>>>The display of the sound and ECG traces is similar to an oscilloscope
>>>display except a blank space of about 5 pixels is shown as it sweeps
>>>across the screen. This means that not only is six horizontal lines
>>>drawn for each trace, for each data burst, but the next six existing
>>>horizontal lines have to be blanked.
>>>>
>>>The above equates to around 300 Heart Beats per Minute (BPM). This is
>>>easily handled by my VB6 application.
>>>>
>>>Using VB2005 Pro I have attempted to convert this VB6 app. As of now I
>>>use shared memory, an in process thread to capture data from the USB
>>>and an ActiveX thread to interface with the USB. I have attempted to do
>>>the drawing with GDI, DirectX, etc.
>>>>
>>>The best I can get is a 15 BPM heart rate.
>>>>
>>>I am contemplating doing the drawing in my ActiveX thread. The idea
>>>being that all of the data capture and drawing is, in effect, being
>>>done via VB6. But if I do this then the VB2005 portion becomes one of
>>>just showing forms with Command buttons and Text boxes etc. But my VB6
>>>app already does this.
>>>>
>>>So my question is, what's the benefit of converting this app to VB.NET?
>>>>
>>>Apparently I can use the Interop Toolkit on my VB6 app instead of
>>>converting to VB2005. What's the benefit in doing that?
>>>>
>>>As an aside, 99% of the customers have us buy a computer and install
>>>the software at the factory. Then the computer is shipped to them. So
>>>no installation problems.
>>>>
>>>I would appreciate any comments pro or con.
>>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>>
>>>Galen
>>>
>>While keeping the application in VB6 will give better performance over
>>interop/COM performance, MS has stated that it will no longer support
>>VB6 after Vista. And, seeing as how MS says the next OS is slated for
>>release in 2009 (only a year and a half from now) it may be wise to go
>>ahead and bite the bullet and move away from VB6.
>>>
>>If .Net is too slow (and it most probably is for real time, high speed
>>serial device input) you may want to go with a C++ application. It's
>>not as easy to code, but C++ will be around for a very long time to
>>come.
>>>
>>jim
>>>

>As I remember, they weren't going to support VB6 in Vista either. The
>original apps were in assembly language with two ISA cards doing the real
>time work. Then Graphics cards got better and cpu's got faster. That's
>when I jumped on VB6 as it was easy to get up to speed.
>>
>Then ISA became passe and USB appeared, so I jumped on that.
>>
>I've toyed with going to C++ but it puts me back in the position of
>figuring everything in detail. Hell, that's what I was doing originally
>in MASM. Age comes into play also. My first program was an Infant Hearing
>Screener written on an Intel ISIS system using 8085's.
>>
>Galen

>
I feel your pain. I am 39. I taught my first programming class when I
was 15 (Apple IIe and IIgs). I stopped coding 4 years ago and opened my
own business doing network administration for small to mid-sized
bsinesses. It gets boring, but it beats the hell out of coding for big
companies like Citibank, Porsche, Coca-Cola, etc. (The constant push to
put apps out before they are ready...and all that crap.)
>
I have been planning on doing some .Net stuff, learning C & C++...but I am
(and I think everyone gets) not so impressed with technology any more. I
look for simple, cost effective solutions. I look for things that will
let me do my job as fast as possible and go live a little.
>
In fact, it looks to me like the general population is tiring of the whole
technology boom. Just look at the Wii kicking the butts of Playstation
and XBox.
>
I've screamed about it until blood has shot out of my mouth.....peopl e
just want simple. Simple has always outsold complex, and it always will.
>
Simple is more cost-effective and makes greater profit margins. Simple
means fewer tech support calls. Simple means money.
>
But, I'll be damned if anyone is listening.
>
Microsoft killed the most popular programming language EVER (in terms of
coders and application base) in favor of what? .Net?
>
.Net was never written for programmers. It was written by Microsoft, for
Microsoft's vision of software as a service. They lied to people to try
and sell it (there NEVER was a "Dll Hell" and I can prove it). They push
.Net on programmers because they can.
>
(One more point and I promise....I'm off my soapbox.) And, Microsoft can
push programmers (and end users) around for one simple
reason...propri etary data formats.
>
Proprietary data formats make it damned near impossible (practically or
financially) for businesses to leave Microsoft or Quickbooks or AutoCAD
or thousands of other applications and move to a different app (much less
a different OS).
>
Things will never change until we enact legislation that enforces open
data formats. All companies that store user data should be forced by law
to publish the data formats that the data is stored in BEFORE they can
sell (or update) their software that users will use to store data. After
all, it is your data (regardless of what software package you use to
compile or store it) and it should always be your data and be portable to
where ever you want to take it.
>
If we enacted open data format legislation, you would see a whole new,
affordable, usable downpour of applications and OS' begin to be used in
business and home use.
>
Software would have to compete based on usability, features and cost
effectiveness.. ..not because the users can't easily or cost effectively
port their data to an app more suited to their needs.
>
(OK....ok.....I 'm stepping down now......)
>
>
>

I agree. My apps have a number of different file formats in use. I decided
early on that they would be handled within the programs.

Galen

[Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please

"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:zSjgi.1587 8$19.5606@bigne ws5.bellsouth.n et...

>
"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:eFEPzPFuHH A.2028@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:GNfgi.7092 $c_4.6058@bigne ws2.bellsouth.n et...

"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:%23GCNSUpt HHA.736@TK2MSFT NGP06.phx.gbl.. .
>My application receives and displays Heart sounds and ECG's in real
>time. This data comes from a proprietary USB 2.0 device. Unlike most

USB

>devices, this data comes in short bursts of about 24 bytes. These

bursts

>could come as fast as every millisecond.
>>
>The display of the sound and ECG traces is similar to an oscilloscope
>display except a blank space of about 5 pixels is shown as it sweeps
>across the screen. This means that not only is six horizontal lines
>drawn for each trace, for each data burst, but the next six existing
>horizontal lines have to be blanked.
>>
>The above equates to around 300 Heart Beats per Minute (BPM). This is
>easily handled by my VB6 application.
>>
>Using VB2005 Pro I have attempted to convert this VB6 app. As of now I
>use shared memory, an in process thread to capture data from the USB

and

>an ActiveX thread to interface with the USB. I have attempted to do

the

>drawing with GDI, DirectX, etc.
>>
>The best I can get is a 15 BPM heart rate.
>>
>I am contemplating doing the drawing in my ActiveX thread. The idea
>being that all of the data capture and drawing is, in effect, being

done

>via VB6. But if I do this then the VB2005 portion becomes one of just
>showing forms with Command buttons and Text boxes etc. But my VB6 app
>already does this.
>>
>So my question is, what's the benefit of converting this app to

VB.NET?

>>
>Apparently I can use the Interop Toolkit on my VB6 app instead of
>converting to VB2005. What's the benefit in doing that?
>>
>As an aside, 99% of the customers have us buy a computer and install

the

>software at the factory. Then the computer is shipped to them. So no
>installation problems.
>>
>I would appreciate any comments pro or con.
>>
>Thanks
>>
>Galen
>
While keeping the application in VB6 will give better performance over
interop/COM performance, MS has stated that it will no longer support

VB6

after Vista. And, seeing as how MS says the next OS is slated for
release in 2009 (only a year and a half from now) it may be wise to go
ahead and bite the bullet and move away from VB6.
>
If .Net is too slow (and it most probably is for real time, high speed
serial device input) you may want to go with a C++ application. It's

not

as easy to code, but C++ will be around for a very long time to come.
>
jim
>

As I remember, they weren't going to support VB6 in Vista either. The
original apps were in assembly language with two ISA cards doing the

real

time work. Then Graphics cards got better and cpu's got faster. That's
when I jumped on VB6 as it was easy to get up to speed.

Then ISA became passe and USB appeared, so I jumped on that.

I've toyed with going to C++ but it puts me back in the position of
figuring everything in detail. Hell, that's what I was doing originally

in

MASM. Age comes into play also. My first program was an Infant Hearing
Screener written on an Intel ISIS system using 8085's.

Galen

>
I feel your pain. I am 39. I taught my first programming class when I

was

15 (Apple IIe and IIgs). I stopped coding 4 years ago and opened my own
business doing network administration for small to mid-sized bsinesses.

It

gets boring, but it beats the hell out of coding for big companies like
Citibank, Porsche, Coca-Cola, etc. (The constant push to put apps out

before

they are ready...and all that crap.)
>
I have been planning on doing some .Net stuff, learning C & C++...but I am
(and I think everyone gets) not so impressed with technology any more. I
look for simple, cost effective solutions. I look for things that will

let

me do my job as fast as possible and go live a little.
>
In fact, it looks to me like the general population is tiring of the whole
technology boom. Just look at the Wii kicking the butts of Playstation

and

XBox.
>
I've screamed about it until blood has shot out of my mouth.....peopl e

just

want simple. Simple has always outsold complex, and it always will.
>
Simple is more cost-effective and makes greater profit margins. Simple
means fewer tech support calls. Simple means money.
>
But, I'll be damned if anyone is listening.
>
Microsoft killed the most popular programming language EVER (in terms of
coders and application base) in favor of what? .Net?
>
.Net was never written for programmers. It was written by Microsoft, for
Microsoft's vision of software as a service. They lied to people to try

and

sell it (there NEVER was a "Dll Hell" and I can prove it). They push .Net
on programmers because they can.
>
(One more point and I promise....I'm off my soapbox.) And, Microsoft can
push programmers (and end users) around for one simple

reason...propri etary

data formats.
>
Proprietary data formats make it damned near impossible (practically or
financially) for businesses to leave Microsoft or Quickbooks or AutoCAD

or

thousands of other applications and move to a different app (much less a
different OS).
>
Things will never change until we enact legislation that enforces open

data

formats. All companies that store user data should be forced by law to
publish the data formats that the data is stored in BEFORE they can sell

(or

update) their software that users will use to store data. After all, it

is

your data (regardless of what software package you use to compile or store
it) and it should always be your data and be portable to where ever you

want

to take it.
>
If we enacted open data format legislation, you would see a whole new,
affordable, usable downpour of applications and OS' begin to be used in
business and home use.
>
Software would have to compete based on usability, features and cost
effectiveness.. ..not because the users can't easily or cost effectively

port

their data to an app more suited to their needs.
>
(OK....ok.....I 'm stepping down now......)
>

Anyone can come up with a database format, and provided it communicates via
internationally recognised standard formats, it does the job. It's the API
for which a standard needs to be set. This would be possible only if it can
be legally recognised that the API is part of the IDEA of the operating
system and NOT part of its design. That way, the API can neither be
protected by copyright nor patent. As a programming level communications
standard necessary for cross-platform (XP) applications, I'd say that it's
not unreasonable to consider the API of ANY operating system fair game for
application in competing operating systems. If the Open Source crowd had the
cajones to take the Windows API on as an application communication standard,
all our apps would suddenly be Linux compatible as well...

The push for a redundant intermediate level API known as the framework via
..NET, signals plans to make major changes to the existing API - namely the
removal of substantial functionality. By going .NET your software becomes
forward compatible with respect to planned changes to Windows API. There is
a lot of pressure from wealthy Hollywood nobs to remove functions that can
be used to directly access media without monitoring by the operating
system's anti-piracy routines. Equally, this means that the Open Source
crowd will not only have to take on the Microsoft for the Windows API but
also for the Framework as well - if the dream of true XP applications is
ever going to be realised...

I would suggest that the Hollywood set may not necessarily represent
American interests - something to remember next time you vote...

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcra ft.com.au 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

[Galen Somerville]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please

Whoa. Way to much for me. I am deleting this newsgroup and sticking with
VB6.general.dis cussion or whatever.

Galen

"Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950" <number@fieldcr aft.biz>
wrote in message
news:46844838$0 $67430$c30e37c6 @lon-reader.news.tel stra.net...

"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:zSjgi.1587 8$19.5606@bigne ws5.bellsouth.n et...

>>
>"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
>news:eFEPzPFuH HA.2028@TK2MSFT NGP04.phx.gbl.. .

>
"jim" <jim@yourpc.edu wrote in message
news:GNfgi.7092 $c_4.6058@bigne ws2.bellsouth.n et...
>"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
>news:%23GCNSUp tHHA.736@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..
>>My application receives and displays Heart sounds and ECG's in real
>>time. This data comes from a proprietary USB 2.0 device. Unlike most

USB

>>devices, this data comes in short bursts of about 24 bytes. These

bursts

>>could come as fast as every millisecond.
>>>
>>The display of the sound and ECG traces is similar to an oscilloscope
>>display except a blank space of about 5 pixels is shown as it sweeps
>>across the screen. This means that not only is six horizontal lines
>>drawn for each trace, for each data burst, but the next six existing
>>horizontal lines have to be blanked.
>>>
>>The above equates to around 300 Heart Beats per Minute (BPM). This is
>>easily handled by my VB6 application.
>>>
>>Using VB2005 Pro I have attempted to convert this VB6 app. As of now
>>I
>>use shared memory, an in process thread to capture data from the USB

and

>>an ActiveX thread to interface with the USB. I have attempted to do

the

>>drawing with GDI, DirectX, etc.
>>>
>>The best I can get is a 15 BPM heart rate.
>>>
>>I am contemplating doing the drawing in my ActiveX thread. The idea
>>being that all of the data capture and drawing is, in effect, being

done

>>via VB6. But if I do this then the VB2005 portion becomes one of just
>>showing forms with Command buttons and Text boxes etc. But my VB6 app
>>already does this.
>>>
>>So my question is, what's the benefit of converting this app to

VB.NET?

>>>
>>Apparently I can use the Interop Toolkit on my VB6 app instead of
>>converting to VB2005. What's the benefit in doing that?
>>>
>>As an aside, 99% of the customers have us buy a computer and install

the

>>software at the factory. Then the computer is shipped to them. So no
>>installatio n problems.
>>>
>>I would appreciate any comments pro or con.
>>>
>>Thanks
>>>
>>Galen
>>
>While keeping the application in VB6 will give better performance over
>interop/COM performance, MS has stated that it will no longer support

VB6

>after Vista. And, seeing as how MS says the next OS is slated for
>release in 2009 (only a year and a half from now) it may be wise to go
>ahead and bite the bullet and move away from VB6.
>>
>If .Net is too slow (and it most probably is for real time, high speed
>serial device input) you may want to go with a C++ application. It's

not

>as easy to code, but C++ will be around for a very long time to come.
>>
>jim
>>
As I remember, they weren't going to support VB6 in Vista either. The
original apps were in assembly language with two ISA cards doing the

real

time work. Then Graphics cards got better and cpu's got faster. That's
when I jumped on VB6 as it was easy to get up to speed.
>
Then ISA became passe and USB appeared, so I jumped on that.
>
I've toyed with going to C++ but it puts me back in the position of
figuring everything in detail. Hell, that's what I was doing originally

in

MASM. Age comes into play also. My first program was an Infant Hearing
Screener written on an Intel ISIS system using 8085's.
>
Galen

>>
>I feel your pain. I am 39. I taught my first programming class when I

was

>15 (Apple IIe and IIgs). I stopped coding 4 years ago and opened my own
>business doing network administration for small to mid-sized bsinesses.

It

>gets boring, but it beats the hell out of coding for big companies like
>Citibank, Porsche, Coca-Cola, etc. (The constant push to put apps out

before

>they are ready...and all that crap.)
>>
>I have been planning on doing some .Net stuff, learning C & C++...but I
>am
>(and I think everyone gets) not so impressed with technology any more. I
>look for simple, cost effective solutions. I look for things that will

let

>me do my job as fast as possible and go live a little.
>>
>In fact, it looks to me like the general population is tiring of the
>whole
>technology boom. Just look at the Wii kicking the butts of Playstation

and

>XBox.
>>
>I've screamed about it until blood has shot out of my mouth.....peopl e

just

>want simple. Simple has always outsold complex, and it always will.
>>
>Simple is more cost-effective and makes greater profit margins. Simple
>means fewer tech support calls. Simple means money.
>>
>But, I'll be damned if anyone is listening.
>>
>Microsoft killed the most popular programming language EVER (in terms of
>coders and application base) in favor of what? .Net?
>>
>.Net was never written for programmers. It was written by Microsoft, for
>Microsoft's vision of software as a service. They lied to people to try

and

>sell it (there NEVER was a "Dll Hell" and I can prove it). They push
>.Net
>on programmers because they can.
>>
>(One more point and I promise....I'm off my soapbox.) And, Microsoft can
>push programmers (and end users) around for one simple

reason...propri etary

>data formats.
>>
>Proprietary data formats make it damned near impossible (practically or
>financially) for businesses to leave Microsoft or Quickbooks or AutoCAD

or

>thousands of other applications and move to a different app (much less a
>different OS).
>>
>Things will never change until we enact legislation that enforces open

data

>formats. All companies that store user data should be forced by law to
>publish the data formats that the data is stored in BEFORE they can sell

(or

>update) their software that users will use to store data. After all, it

is

>your data (regardless of what software package you use to compile or
>store
>it) and it should always be your data and be portable to where ever you

want

>to take it.
>>
>If we enacted open data format legislation, you would see a whole new,
>affordable, usable downpour of applications and OS' begin to be used in
>business and home use.
>>
>Software would have to compete based on usability, features and cost
>effectiveness. ...not because the users can't easily or cost effectively

port

>their data to an app more suited to their needs.
>>
>(OK....ok..... I'm stepping down now......)
>>

>
Anyone can come up with a database format, and provided it communicates
via
internationally recognised standard formats, it does the job. It's the API
for which a standard needs to be set. This would be possible only if it
can
be legally recognised that the API is part of the IDEA of the operating
system and NOT part of its design. That way, the API can neither be
protected by copyright nor patent. As a programming level communications
standard necessary for cross-platform (XP) applications, I'd say that it's
not unreasonable to consider the API of ANY operating system fair game for
application in competing operating systems. If the Open Source crowd had
the
cajones to take the Windows API on as an application communication
standard,
all our apps would suddenly be Linux compatible as well...
>
The push for a redundant intermediate level API known as the framework via
.NET, signals plans to make major changes to the existing API - namely the
removal of substantial functionality. By going .NET your software becomes
forward compatible with respect to planned changes to Windows API. There
is
a lot of pressure from wealthy Hollywood nobs to remove functions that can
be used to directly access media without monitoring by the operating
system's anti-piracy routines. Equally, this means that the Open Source
crowd will not only have to take on the Microsoft for the Windows API but
also for the Framework as well - if the dream of true XP applications is
ever going to be realised...
>
I would suggest that the Hollywood set may not necessarily represent
American interests - something to remember next time you vote...
>
--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcra ft.com.au 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz
>
>

[Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950]

Re: VB6 to VB.NET, comments please


"Galen Somerville" <galen@communit y.nospamwrote in message
news:uRW7SKeuHH A.4440@TK2MSFTN GP06.phx.gbl...

Whoa. Way to much for me. I am deleting this newsgroup and sticking with
VB6.general.dis cussion or whatever.
>
Galen
>
"Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950" <number@fieldcr aft.biz>
wrote in message
news:46844838$0 $67430$c30e37c6 @lon-reader.news.tel stra.net...

[SNIP]

Sorry, but I could never resist a good soapbox! :^)

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcra ft.com.au 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz