C++ 6.0

[yuthra253]

Any body know where I can find a copy. Not on E-Bay please. Thanks very much in advance. (No I am not looking for the .NET version.)

[Kezzer]

You mean Visual C++ 6.0 as in Microsofts software I'm sure there are many e-tailers that do it. I need to get a copy myself.

[yuthra253]

Yes I do. I looked on like Amazon and they dont have it. The microsoft website only seems to have links to .NET and Best Buy doesnt carry it and the people there are stupid they didn't even know what C++ and Visual Basic were.

[directhex]

you'll be lucky to find it.

microsoft tend to do everything they can to remove old versions from availability, usually by hiking prices and recalling stock. visual c++ is no exception, and on a quick look i was unable to find it

[yuthra253]

Yeah its freakin hard to find and from what I've heard .NET runs considerably slower than 6.0 Is this true? Or should I get .NET anyway? Thanks very much for your input so far! I am at work ATM but have been searching like crazy and checking all the placed I can think of. No luck so far.

[directhex]

no, it's not true. .net can be made to do non-.net code if you configure it to do so, and has integral compatability with modern systems such as "windows 2000"

[yuthra253]

well im not too familiar with it but here are some quotes from reviews i have read. tell me what you think

"
Absolute and total crap. Try and compile any of your programs with and you will see the following error:

D4029 : optimization is not available in the standard edition compiler

That's right, Visual C++ .NET Standard Edition performs absolutely NO OPTIMIZATION.

My DirectDraw went from rendering more than 100 FPS to *17* FPS. I have never been so pissed off in my life, I have just blown $100.00 for NOTHING.

What's worse, you can not buy just Visual C++ .NET Professional Edition. To get an optimizing C++ .NET compiler, you have to buy *ALL* of Visual Studio .NET (it will only put you back a cool grand).
"



"
Once it arrived, I decided to do some benchmarking to compare performance of builds between VC6 and vc.net. I made a build of my engine to arbitrarily do 500 box-triangle collisions against level geometry per frame, figuring that would be a good way of averaging things out since it's completely cpu-based (and largely dependant on compiler optimizations). I was a bit shocked by the results. My VC6 build maintained a consant 40+ FPS on my p3 1ghz, while using the exact same code and assets, the vc.net build stayed at around 15-20fps. I fiddled with the project settings for a while, but concluded this speed loss was due the lack of compiler optimizations in vc.net standard. Which means there isn't a darn thing I can do about it. Oh, and no, I didn't do something silly like test a release build against a debug build. I made sure the project settings for each build were as similar as possible.
"

[directhex]

well one housemate wrote opengl code with vc6, one with vc.net, there wasn't anything visible between them

either way, both are dog-slow compared to icc, which isn't cheap.

[yuthra253]

sorry but you confused me, can you explain that again a little simpler. -_- thanks

[Kezzer]

sorry but you confused me, can you explain that again a little simpler. -_- thanks

lmao, i don't think hex could be more clearer.

Both Visual C++ and the new .NET run at the same speed. They're also both 'dog slow' compared to ICC but ICC costs a lot of money.

I don't know what to go for but i know i'll be needing VC in the fy00cha.

[yuthra253]

Both Visual C++ and the new .NET run at the same speed. They're also both 'dog slow' compared to ICC but ICC costs a lot of money.

"My VC6 build maintained a consant 40+ FPS on my p3 1ghz, while using the exact same code and assets, the vc.net build stayed at around 15-20fps"


why would that be?

[Kezzer]

Don't you have to install the DX SDK for the .NET release? It could be some sort of driver issue but from what i've heard from other sources they run at the same speed. VC.NET is VC6 afterall.

[directhex]

also if the user ticked the "managed code" box, then it'd be slower - managed code is more stable & more secure, but slower.

try, to compare, the quake2.net compiles - and compare to the original quake2.

[yuthra253]

ok so basically .net is not slower they just dont know what they are talking about?

[Grey M@a]

you do the same as I do I have .net for application development etc but i use vs6 for my OpenGL work, slight gains but I am generally lazy and stick to what I know