Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
On 10/11/06, Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philip Covington wrote: > > On 10/11/06, Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> At 06:44 AM 10/11/2006, Jim, W4ATK wrote: > >> > >>> Phil Covington wrote: > >>> > >>> "A lot of the perceived need for threading goes away when you get away > >>> from > >>> straight > >>> line procedural code." > >>> > >>> As an OLD machine language programmer, I am of the impression that > >>> "straight > >>> line" code increases the speed of the particular routine(s) avoiding those > >>> heavy far calls and the resultant stack operations. I think most > >>> optimizers > >>> that offer the choice of size and/or speed generate straight line objects > >>> as > >>> a means of increasing the speed. Perhaps my rather ancient experience > >>> is > >>> mistaken > >>> > >> True in most cases. But, might be a case of optimizing for a > >> resource which we have an excess of, by spending a resource we are short > >> of. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > The interesting thing is that the JIT in .NET finds optimizations at > > run time that could not easily be built into an optimizing compiler. > > > > I was pleasantly surprised when I could compute a FFT/IFFT in code > > written in C# (based on Ooura's FFT code) as fast as using FFTW > > library (even after running wisdom). If you look through the SharpDSP > > source you'll see that I did not use FFTW. > > > > I suspect, but am not sure, that you ran these tests before we changed > the internals over to float and used the SIMD variants in FFTW. It is > very hard for me to imagine compiled code running faster than these hand > optimized assembly "codelets". That would be VERY interesting to > investigate if it is true. > > > > 73 de Phil N8VB > > > > _ > > 73's > Bob > N4HY Actually, I have and its pretty much a wash for FFTs up to 65536 points (the largest I tested). I was trying to decide whether to use FFTW or the FFT in SharpDSP with the Mercury spectrum analyzer. I recompiled SharpDSP in .NET 2 and since the speed is pretty much the same I went with SharpDSP (which uses Ooura's FFT code). The big advantage is that I do not need to use another external library like FFTW. Also, in .NET 2 I removed all of the unsafe code with no performance hit. There really is no reason to use unsafe code in .NET 2. I am not surprised as much by the speed equivalence as I used to be when I realized that the JIT will use SIMD operations if it finds a performance gain. Now I realize that my C# coded DSP won't run on a TI DSP or dsPIC like DttSP can be modified to do, but it will run nicely on PCs in Windows and Linux (using mono). 73 de Phil N8VB ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
Philip Covington wrote: > On 10/11/06, Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 06:44 AM 10/11/2006, Jim, W4ATK wrote: >> >>> Phil Covington wrote: >>> >>> "A lot of the perceived need for threading goes away when you get away from >>> straight >>> line procedural code." >>> >>> As an OLD machine language programmer, I am of the impression that "straight >>> line" code increases the speed of the particular routine(s) avoiding those >>> heavy far calls and the resultant stack operations. I think most optimizers >>> that offer the choice of size and/or speed generate straight line objects as >>> a means of increasing the speed. Perhaps my rather ancient experience is >>> mistaken >>> >> True in most cases. But, might be a case of optimizing for a >> resource which we have an excess of, by spending a resource we are short of. >> >> > > > > The interesting thing is that the JIT in .NET finds optimizations at > run time that could not easily be built into an optimizing compiler. > > I was pleasantly surprised when I could compute a FFT/IFFT in code > written in C# (based on Ooura's FFT code) as fast as using FFTW > library (even after running wisdom). If you look through the SharpDSP > source you'll see that I did not use FFTW. > I suspect, but am not sure, that you ran these tests before we changed the internals over to float and used the SIMD variants in FFTW. It is very hard for me to imagine compiled code running faster than these hand optimized assembly "codelets". That would be VERY interesting to investigate if it is true. > 73 de Phil N8VB > > _ 73's Bob N4HY -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
On 10/11/06, Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:44 AM 10/11/2006, Jim, W4ATK wrote: > >Phil Covington wrote: > > > >"A lot of the perceived need for threading goes away when you get away from > >straight > >line procedural code." > > > >As an OLD machine language programmer, I am of the impression that "straight > >line" code increases the speed of the particular routine(s) avoiding those > >heavy far calls and the resultant stack operations. I think most optimizers > >that offer the choice of size and/or speed generate straight line objects as > >a means of increasing the speed. Perhaps my rather ancient experience is > >mistaken > > > True in most cases. But, might be a case of optimizing for a > resource which we have an excess of, by spending a resource we are short of. > The interesting thing is that the JIT in .NET finds optimizations at run time that could not easily be built into an optimizing compiler. I was pleasantly surprised when I could compute a FFT/IFFT in code written in C# (based on Ooura's FFT code) as fast as using FFTW library (even after running wisdom). If you look through the SharpDSP source you'll see that I did not use FFTW. 73 de Phil N8VB ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
At 06:44 AM 10/11/2006, Jim, W4ATK wrote: >Phil Covington wrote: > >"A lot of the perceived need for threading goes away when you get away from >straight >line procedural code." > >As an OLD machine language programmer, I am of the impression that "straight >line" code increases the speed of the particular routine(s) avoiding those >heavy far calls and the resultant stack operations. I think most optimizers >that offer the choice of size and/or speed generate straight line objects as >a means of increasing the speed. Perhaps my rather ancient experience is >mistaken True in most cases. But, might be a case of optimizing for a resource which we have an excess of, by spending a resource we are short of. In the PowerSDR case, there's an explicit decision to "spend some processor resources" to achieve a greater degree of abstraction, which makes the code easier to write, maintain, and keep compatible with the underlying OS. Anytime you start using "clever code" to get around things that the OS doesn't do well (i.e. perceived slow implementation of some function), you run the risk of it being overtaken by events when the OS (or underlying assumptions which makes the clever code better) changes. As Knuth said, don't tweak, find a better algorithm. In the windows world, things that tend to be big resource hogs (graphics drawing) are also things that lots of developers (those that carry more dollar clout than us) want to go fast, so MS tends to spend time making it better (along with things that we'd rather they not spend time on.. Windows Guaranteed Advantage and Plays For Sure, for instance). In any event, architecture design and coding in a style which matches the preferred windows conceptual model (an admittedly shifting paradigm, but it changes fairly slowly, with a period of about 2-3 years) is more likely to "port" to next Windows version. And, I think MS is listening to the screams of developers (especially those in big shops). MS really does want to enlarge their hegemony for applications, and making life easier for developers is a way to do that. It's sort of like *good* optimizing compilers do a better job, most of the time, than the average coder does (or, even, better than the good coders do), especially when it comes to making use of arcane OS features. Yes, on any given little piece of code, you might be able to hand tune it, but we also don't have infinite people resources to throw at the problem, so giving up some small amount of efficiency (which is cheap, in at least one sense) in order to make effective use of our truly scarce resource (people doing code) is probably a good trade. Jim ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
Phil Covington wrote: "A lot of the perceived need for threading goes away when you get away from straight line procedural code." As an OLD machine language programmer, I am of the impression that "straight line" code increases the speed of the particular routine(s) avoiding those heavy far calls and the resultant stack operations. I think most optimizers that offer the choice of size and/or speed generate straight line objects as a means of increasing the speed. Perhaps my rather ancient experience is mistaken Jim, W4ATK ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
On 10/11/06, Paul Shaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you have said below is mostly true for the current UI class design, > which I think should be abandoned. > You are concerned about issues that shouldn't even come up, but are due to a > less than optimum overall > class design. The pesky threading issues arise when you are directly changing > controls in one form based > on actions in another. I hope you don't perpetuate this design. > > The actions in the settings form should cause changes to a model object. And > if you are using vs2005/net2.0 > you can use data binding to arbitrary objects in the main form. Threading > issues mostly go away or are easily > solved. It's the MVC/MVP pattern that is the most helpful in this case. The > Invoke wrapper on the controls > is not required at all with data binding or the observer pattern. It's so > cludgy I shudder. > > I apolgize in advance for any mistakes, and for any perceived rudeness, I > have the highest regard > for your work. > > I agree with the above assessment/suggestions. There is usually a reason why certain mechanisms are not added to or are dropped from .NET - most of the time it is because there is a better way to handle those things. The biggest problem that the current console code has is that it was approached as if someone were writing the whole project in C and not C# (or any object oriented language). A lot of the perceived need for threading goes away when you get away from straight line procedural code. 73 de Phil N8VB ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
What you have said below is mostly true for the current UI class design, which I think should be abandoned. You are concerned about issues that shouldn't even come up, but are due to a less than optimum overall class design. The pesky threading issues arise when you are directly changing controls in one form based on actions in another. I hope you don't perpetuate this design. The actions in the settings form should cause changes to a model object. And if you are using vs2005/net2.0 you can use data binding to arbitrary objects in the main form. Threading issues mostly go away or are easily solved. It's the MVC/MVP pattern that is the most helpful in this case. The Invoke wrapper on the controls is not required at all with data binding or the observer pattern. It's so cludgy I shudder. I apolgize in advance for any mistakes, and for any perceived rudeness, I have the highest regard for your work. == Actually, based on my research, they didn't fix this in .NET v2.0. You still have to do the recommended workarounds they suggest for .NET v1.1 when accessing GUI controls from a thread other than the one that created them in order to avoid random crashing. I understand why they wouldn't want to default them to be thread safe due to performance concerns (checking thread IDs can be slow). But there's no reason not to have this as a property option on each control. This would keep the developer from having to wrap each and every control into a thread safe wrapper. I haven't seen any mention of whether they have addressed this in .NET v3.0. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems > -Original Message- > From: Jim Lux [mailto:James.P.Lux at jpl.nasa.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:36 PM > To: Eric Wachsmann > Cc: 'Flex-radio Reflector' > Subject: RE: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista > > At 02:03 PM 10/10/2006, Eric Wachsmann wrote: > >Those are in our source. Look in the root\trunk\Source\Console\Invoke\ > >folder for the definitions. These are basically wrappers on the existing > >GUI controls that incorporate Thread Safe mechanisms. Why this is not a > >defined property on the controls from MS, I'll never understand. It > would > >save many programmers some headaches. > > Tnx > > In most of the .net 2.0 stuff, things are already thread safe. A > better threading model is one of the big advantages of VS2005, tec. > > Jim > ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
All Right!! That's great news! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Wachsmann Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Jim Lux' Cc: 'Flex-radio Reflector' Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista We ARE NOT planning on using the same tools for the future versions of the software. Rather, we will use FREE TOOLS. We have not settled 100% on what those free tools will be, but right Visual Studio 2005 Express versions are looking to be the best pick for the windows GUI. Obviously we'd like to have a cross platform GUI, but have yet to find a set of libraries/tools that rival the ease-of-use and efficiency of Visual Studio's tools. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > radio.biz] On Behalf Of Mike Naruta > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:29 AM > To: Jim Lux > Cc: Flex-radio Reflector > Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista > > Thanks Jim. I was hoping to hear from the developers > whether the re-write would be the same, or whether > the tools I would have to buy would be useless on > the new PowerSDR. > > > Mike - AA8K > > > > Jim Lux wrote: > > At 06:10 AM 10/8/2006, Mike Naruta wrote: > >> I bought my SDR-1000 a year-and-a-half ago. I got > >> e > >> Maybe it's time to break down and try to find and > >> buy Visual Studio 2003. > >> > >> Is the re-write still going to be in Visual Studio 2003? > >> > >> Is that going to work with Vista? > > > > Sort of.. > > .net 1.1 and VS2003 stuff will have runtime compatibility with Vista, > > but there's word from MS that the development environment (specifically > > the debugger) may not work. > > > > In connection with the release, last week, of SP1 for VS2005 (probably > > to support various aspects of Vista) > > > > From a MS Development VP at > > http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx > > "As I've mentioned previously, Windows Vista will ship with the .NET > > Framework 3.0 pre-installed. We're also testing to ensure that your > > .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 applications will work on Windows Vista so > > that your existing applications will continue to run as expected. > > However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio > > .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista. You can > > continue to use Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 on Windows XP to develop > > applications that can run on Windows Vista. Given the customer feedback > > that we've received since the launch of Visual Studio 2005 indicating > > the manageability of upgrading from Visual Studio .NET 2003 to Visual > > Studio 2005, we are focusing our efforts on ensuring VS 2005 is a great > > development platform for Vista. > > " > > > > Lots of discussion in the blogs and forums about what this actually > > means. To say that some of the posts are hostile is an understatement. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > FlexRadio mailing list > FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz > http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz > Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
At 02:48 PM 10/10/2006, Eric Wachsmann wrote: >Actually, based on my research, they didn't fix this in .NET v2.0. You >still have to do the recommended workarounds they suggest for .NET v1.1 when >accessing GUI controls from a thread other than the one that created them in >order to avoid random crashing. Oh.. I see. In my code, I've generally partitioned things such that one thread doesn't go in and tinker with controls created by another, so the threadsafety issue is moot. I use some intermediate storage or message passing. I can see why, though, it might be handy to be able to go and change a control's value from somewhere else (real time updates of displays spring to mind) with halfway decent performance. ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
Actually, based on my research, they didn't fix this in .NET v2.0. You still have to do the recommended workarounds they suggest for .NET v1.1 when accessing GUI controls from a thread other than the one that created them in order to avoid random crashing. I understand why they wouldn't want to default them to be thread safe due to performance concerns (checking thread IDs can be slow). But there's no reason not to have this as a property option on each control. This would keep the developer from having to wrap each and every control into a thread safe wrapper. I haven't seen any mention of whether they have addressed this in .NET v3.0. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems > -Original Message- > From: Jim Lux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:36 PM > To: Eric Wachsmann > Cc: 'Flex-radio Reflector' > Subject: RE: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista > > At 02:03 PM 10/10/2006, Eric Wachsmann wrote: > >Those are in our source. Look in the root\trunk\Source\Console\Invoke\ > >folder for the definitions. These are basically wrappers on the existing > >GUI controls that incorporate Thread Safe mechanisms. Why this is not a > >defined property on the controls from MS, I'll never understand. It > would > >save many programmers some headaches. > > Tnx > > In most of the .net 2.0 stuff, things are already thread safe. A > better threading model is one of the big advantages of VS2005, tec. > > Jim > ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
At 02:03 PM 10/10/2006, Eric Wachsmann wrote: >Those are in our source. Look in the root\trunk\Source\Console\Invoke\ >folder for the definitions. These are basically wrappers on the existing >GUI controls that incorporate Thread Safe mechanisms. Why this is not a >defined property on the controls from MS, I'll never understand. It would >save many programmers some headaches. Tnx In most of the .net 2.0 stuff, things are already thread safe. A better threading model is one of the big advantages of VS2005, tec. Jim ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista "We ARE NOT planning on using the same tools for the future versions of the software. Rather, we will use FREE TOOLS. We have not settled 100% on what those free tools will be, but right Visual Studio 2005 Express versions are looking to be the best pick for the windows GUI. Obviously we'd like to have a cross platform GUI, but have yet to find a set of libraries/tools that rival the ease-of-use and efficiency of Visual Studio's tools. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems" This may have been discussed before but that's the best news I've read. We who do not program enough to spend $100 or more for each version of M.S. programming plateforms find it refreshing that you will eventually go to Free Tools". This will make it easier for many others to begin playing with their own radio in ways they cannot do now. Hope you all can find something suitable soon. Regards Hulen K5HCS -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/flexradio_flex-radio.biz/attachments/20061010/c68d9030/attachment.html ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
That's great! That should attract a lot more volunteer code contributor/maintainers. On Tuesday 10 October 2006 11:42, Eric Wachsmann wrote: > We ARE NOT planning on using the same tools for the future versions of the > software. Rather, we will use FREE TOOLS. ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
Those are in our source. Look in the root\trunk\Source\Console\Invoke\ folder for the definitions. These are basically wrappers on the existing GUI controls that incorporate Thread Safe mechanisms. Why this is not a defined property on the controls from MS, I'll never understand. It would save many programmers some headaches. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems > -Original Message- > From: Jim Lux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:52 PM > To: Eric Wachsmann > Cc: 'Flex-radio Reflector' > Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista > > At 09:42 AM 10/10/2006, Eric Wachsmann wrote: > >We ARE NOT planning on using the same tools for the future versions of > the > >software. Rather, we will use FREE TOOLS. We have not settled 100% on > what > >those free tools will be, but right Visual Studio 2005 Express versions > are > >looking to be the best pick for the windows GUI. Obviously we'd like to > >have a cross platform GUI, but have yet to find a set of libraries/tools > >that rival the ease-of-use and efficiency of Visual Studio's tools. > > > > Along which lines I have a question: > > > What assembly are things like TextBoxTS, ButtonTS, etc. defined > in. Is it some .net 1.1 framework peculiar thing. or some artifact > of MS 2003->2005 converter? > > I tried blindly loading an old rev into VC#2005 and got about 350 > errors when loading console.cs, mostly talking about undefined > things: System.Windows.Forms.TextBoxTS for instance. Other modules > load up just fine. > > > ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
At 09:42 AM 10/10/2006, Eric Wachsmann wrote: >We ARE NOT planning on using the same tools for the future versions of the >software. Rather, we will use FREE TOOLS. We have not settled 100% on what >those free tools will be, but right Visual Studio 2005 Express versions are >looking to be the best pick for the windows GUI. Obviously we'd like to >have a cross platform GUI, but have yet to find a set of libraries/tools >that rival the ease-of-use and efficiency of Visual Studio's tools. Along which lines I have a question: What assembly are things like TextBoxTS, ButtonTS, etc. defined in. Is it some .net 1.1 framework peculiar thing. or some artifact of MS 2003->2005 converter? I tried blindly loading an old rev into VC#2005 and got about 350 errors when loading console.cs, mostly talking about undefined things: System.Windows.Forms.TextBoxTS for instance. Other modules load up just fine. ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
We ARE NOT planning on using the same tools for the future versions of the software. Rather, we will use FREE TOOLS. We have not settled 100% on what those free tools will be, but right Visual Studio 2005 Express versions are looking to be the best pick for the windows GUI. Obviously we'd like to have a cross platform GUI, but have yet to find a set of libraries/tools that rival the ease-of-use and efficiency of Visual Studio's tools. Eric Wachsmann FlexRadio Systems > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > radio.biz] On Behalf Of Mike Naruta > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:29 AM > To: Jim Lux > Cc: Flex-radio Reflector > Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista > > Thanks Jim. I was hoping to hear from the developers > whether the re-write would be the same, or whether > the tools I would have to buy would be useless on > the new PowerSDR. > > > Mike - AA8K > > > > Jim Lux wrote: > > At 06:10 AM 10/8/2006, Mike Naruta wrote: > >> I bought my SDR-1000 a year-and-a-half ago. I got > >> e > >> Maybe it's time to break down and try to find and > >> buy Visual Studio 2003. > >> > >> Is the re-write still going to be in Visual Studio 2003? > >> > >> Is that going to work with Vista? > > > > Sort of.. > > .net 1.1 and VS2003 stuff will have runtime compatibility with Vista, > > but there's word from MS that the development environment (specifically > > the debugger) may not work. > > > > In connection with the release, last week, of SP1 for VS2005 (probably > > to support various aspects of Vista) > > > > From a MS Development VP at > > http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx > > "As I've mentioned previously, Windows Vista will ship with the .NET > > Framework 3.0 pre-installed. We're also testing to ensure that your > > .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 applications will work on Windows Vista so > > that your existing applications will continue to run as expected. > > However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio > > .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista. You can > > continue to use Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 on Windows XP to develop > > applications that can run on Windows Vista. Given the customer feedback > > that we've received since the launch of Visual Studio 2005 indicating > > the manageability of upgrading from Visual Studio .NET 2003 to Visual > > Studio 2005, we are focusing our efforts on ensuring VS 2005 is a great > > development platform for Vista. > > " > > > > Lots of discussion in the blogs and forums about what this actually > > means. To say that some of the posts are hostile is an understatement. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > FlexRadio mailing list > FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz > http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz > Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ > FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
Re: [Flexradio] Vs2003 vis a vis Vista
Thanks Jim. I was hoping to hear from the developers whether the re-write would be the same, or whether the tools I would have to buy would be useless on the new PowerSDR. Mike - AA8K Jim Lux wrote: > At 06:10 AM 10/8/2006, Mike Naruta wrote: >> I bought my SDR-1000 a year-and-a-half ago. I got >> e >> Maybe it's time to break down and try to find and >> buy Visual Studio 2003. >> >> Is the re-write still going to be in Visual Studio 2003? >> >> Is that going to work with Vista? > > Sort of.. > .net 1.1 and VS2003 stuff will have runtime compatibility with Vista, > but there's word from MS that the development environment (specifically > the debugger) may not work. > > In connection with the release, last week, of SP1 for VS2005 (probably > to support various aspects of Vista) > > From a MS Development VP at > http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx > "As I've mentioned previously, Windows Vista will ship with the .NET > Framework 3.0 pre-installed. We're also testing to ensure that your > .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0 applications will work on Windows Vista so > that your existing applications will continue to run as expected. > However, we will not support Visual Studio .NET 2002 or Visual Studio > .NET 2003 as development environments on Windows Vista. You can > continue to use Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 on Windows XP to develop > applications that can run on Windows Vista. Given the customer feedback > that we've received since the launch of Visual Studio 2005 indicating > the manageability of upgrading from Visual Studio .NET 2003 to Visual > Studio 2005, we are focusing our efforts on ensuring VS 2005 is a great > development platform for Vista. > " > > Lots of discussion in the blogs and forums about what this actually > means. To say that some of the posts are hostile is an understatement. > > > Jim > > > > > > > ___ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
