heh, unrelated to fractals, I have another issue....... Our school uses Visual Studio 6 on older winxp machines, my home computers use Visual Studio 2005 Express edition. I've used VB programs between the two machines, coding on one then the other without an issue. However, now that I'd like to do the same this time with Visual C++, I'm having issues. Basically put, a cpp file coded in visual studio 6 won't work outright without some conversions (even then it doesnt function correctly) likewise for a cpp file created in visual studio 2005. I was also told that visual studio 6 has issues (although i believe fixable) on winxp sp2 machines.... Is there a solution for this (as i'm in dire need of being able to edit these files)...or should i try to track down a copy of visual studio 6(if there still available) Ryan
I haven't ever tried going from VS 2003+ back to 6, but I would think it should work fine. What errors are you getting? I know the solution/project files will be different, but with the same cpp/h files what errors are you getting? Jeff.
if its a file from vs6 vs2005 will ask me if i want to convert it to vs2005 compatibility (it adds several libs i think, stadfx??..or something like that)...however when i run it, it never seems to work (flashes a blank command prompt, then closes) if i try to load up a file made in vs2005, it crashes vs6.........go figure
ryan, Try and create a VS 2005 project named whatever, Then create a VS 6.0 project whatever2. If you copy a cpp into both, neither vs's will ask you to convert a cpp file. Just add an existing cpp/h file and choose the files you have. I can only assume your working on a small console project, so doing this should work and it's not too hard. I still think your trying to import the project and going from 2005 to 6 will not work. Jeff
I thought express only supported C# and VB and you needed the full version for C++. Also, I know on the full version going fwhen you bring aolder project in you are asked if you want to convert the project.
heh, yea express is quite limited, visual c++ express doesnt have nearly the same options as vs6 (that i can see) I tried what webjeff suggested and it failed to work I'm fine with editing some of the files in notepad, but since its a fractal program, i kinda need to see the results of my editing.........heh Ryan
Visual C++ express is nice for just messing around. What failed? Did it try and convert cpp files which would make no sense to me. If you compile and get errors, what errors? You may need to link with different libraries or rename some functions.... but I don't know exactly what your program looks like. Jeff.
heh, it tries to convert them, after which i get a sh*tload of errors if i try to run the damm thing My program is a standard MFC appwizard(exe), consisting of: Fractals.dsw Fractals.h Fractals.cpp FractalsView.cpp FractalsView.h resource.h ChildFrm.cpp (no idea what that is) FractalsDoc.cpp MainFrm.cpp FractalsDoc.h MainFrm.h Fractals.dsp its a standard visual c++ setup, nothing fancy really I mainly wanted to add in another menu option, and perhaps do some graphics with it (add perhaps an image).... Ryan
I try and find out your problem, as i only use visual studio 2003 i may ask when i am in college tommorow if i can't find out myself
Your first question of studio 6 on XP with SP2 should work fine I use it on a similar machine. Between 2005 and studio 6 They are two different beast. M$ made changes between 2003 and 2005 so you can not just take an project from a newer version and have it work on an older one. Older ones just need some changes to work on the newer ones and I do knwo from 6 to 2003 there were MFC changes and from 2003 to 2005 there were more.
ahh cool, i'll hopefully grab a copy of vs6 soon, my professor had told me there had been some sort of java change between the release of vs6 and sp2 that had caused incompatibility issues........though it sounds like there isnt any... yea, i loaded the code again (it asked me to convert the files, and so i let it convert them) and when i ran the program i got around 60 odd errors, they were all ones i've never encountered before, one that i can remember is "kernal32.dll::symbol not found"...they were all strange ones....heh sorry for being rather vague, im still trying to master some of the basics of c++, so i may be a bit sparse on the details Ryan
Your best bet is either studio 6 on both machines or 2005. trying to go back and forth while learning can be tough. ALso, M$ did not make their 2005 projects backwards compatible so once converted no going back.
It would be better if your school was not running "ancient" software. There were a lot of changes (most for the better) going from 6.0 to .NET. For some reason, it looks like VS 6 Professional still goes for several hundred dollars on ebay and more elsewhere. h: If you decide to "downgrade" your home system, let me know as I have a set of VS 6 Pro disks (with accompanying VJ++ disk, but no MSDN Library disks) that I definitely don't need any more. I am sure that we could work something out. :nod:
If you're using MFC (and it sounds like you are based on one of the msgs above), the versions of MFC between VS6 and VS2005 are quite different. That's likely what's causing your compilation issues. Unfortunately, if you try to convert back and forth, I don't think you'll get a version of the code that will compile on both versions (MFC 6.0 vs MFC 8.0) without basically writing it twice and wrapping things in #ifdef's. That said, VS6 works just fine on XP SP2. The java issue your prof mentioned is that VS6 support was dropped because it contains a version of the MS JVM for their Visual J# product. The ugliness between Sun and MS over the JVM stuff back in the day has caused MS to stop selling and supporting all products which depend on that version of the JVM, VS6 being one of them. But in terms of installing and using VS6 on XP SP2, there's no issues that I'm aware of. I've used it without any problems.
heh, good news, i was able to legally obtain a version of VS6, installed it with no problems I'll post the source, and code in a bit Thanks to all for your help Ryan
I know it's not allowed but when I was at college I used an *ahem* copy of Delphi 7. I may be worth you doing the same ie, getting a dodgy copy off ebay. How can MS and college's expect students to fork out hundreds for this software? P.S Can't believe you're not using .NET yet at your school!
yea...then again my school still used win 98 on alot of the machines lol, heh, i might have to track down a copy of delphi!..... (i think i have one from a robotics comp somewhere)
Using an old compiler isn't exactly a bad thing. If it works, it works. And if you know how to use it and it makes you happy, there is rarely a reason to change... unless for some reason you need some whiz bang feature, which is hardly ever the case. Let me illustrate with a couple of examples (keeping in context of this thread): - Visual Studio 6 (VC++) will not allow you to declare a body for a pure virtual function. Why should it? The very definition of a pure virtual function is that it HAS to be overridden. The ONLY purpose would be so that derived classes can call a common routine [(base *)this->supposedpurevirtualfunction();]. But you know what? If you need that capability that function shouldn't be pure virtual. But the current Visual Studio compiler (and any with good C++0x compliance, like gcc 4.*) will let you do it. Not really what I would call, "a feature" - Visual Studio 6 will not let you have a var declared as 'char mystring[];'. Why should it? Its a char array of unknown bytes, meaning that the memory can't be allocated on the stack. In my day we called that a pointer. 'char *mystring;'. But it ok in the c++0x standard, although it is nothing more than syntactic sugar for the poor souls who can't bare to declare a var with a *. And yes, I worked with a guy who did this because it was too much work to left allign his variable names (on the letter, not the *). Now, again, the point of those examples was to point out that a lot of the new standard compliance is just a new path to the same house you've always been going to. And you can't imagine how much code is out there compiled with gcc 2.95.* still. A lot of code porting I have to do (code targets gcc 3/4, and I have to make it work on 2.95) are plagued with my above examples. And to get more back on topic, see http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb288454.aspx Older code is subject to updating now that MS is trying to put some thought into security. They are coming to the realization that a lot of attack vectors on their software is because of maintaining backward compatibility. Libraries have been updated and even removed because there is simply no way to make them safe AND work.
Thanks, I'm currently organising some stuff in the "computer" room, so i'm at a lost as to where stuff is.....heh, i just found an old intel "journey inside the computer" school kit! cheers mate! Ryan
