Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

DarkBASIC Discussion / How well does DarkBASIC Classic hold up in 2012?

Author
Message
bkimble
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jun 2012
Location:
Posted: 28th Jun 2012 05:27
I'm looking into getting DarkBASIC Classic but I'm curious how well it holds up today.

I've been told DBPro is much better but the amount of stuff it improves upon seems overwhelming. Also I thought I read somewhere that DBC is better documented.

I'm computer savvy but I never took to programming, stopping somewhere after QBasic/Visual Basic 3. I never forgave myself for not keeping up with programming and recently thought I should stop limiting myself and try to pick it up again.

A programmer friend told me to pick up C++ or python but I want to use a BASIC dialect since I'm most familiar with it.

I'm torn between this and BlitzBasic, so how well does this language stack up in 2012?
BatVink
Moderator
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 28th Jun 2012 13:52
DB Classic can still hold it's own, the Starwraith series is written in this language.

However, you might as well go straight for DB Pro, it's now free. Everything in DB Classic is in Pro, You can limit yourself to the "classic" functionality in Pro, if you choose to keep it simple.

There are so many tutorials for DBPro from newsletters, websites and avid users, that the documentation falls by the wayside.

gamerboots
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2008
Location: USA
Posted: 2nd Jul 2012 20:12
Hi there,
I have both and its my opinion that Pro is much better. It is true that DBC has a nice amount of documentation but what you should be aware of is that although exe's from it run fine on most win 7 systems (providing you include a dll), that it doesn't mean that DBC will compile on them. Pro appears to work well with win 7 with the exception that hp brands will often throw the annoying file permission error.

they will never know what bit them until its too late...
Libervurto
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 3rd Jul 2012 02:06
There really is no reason to stick with DBC other than the added challenge of writing a game with an outdated (but still fun) language.

Shh... you're pretty.
BN2 Productions
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Jul 2012 16:07
Quote: "There really is no reason to stick with DBC other than the added challenge of writing a game with an outdated (but still fun) language.
"


That and I honestly prefer the rendering engine in DBC over DBP. It's a little crisper, I think (I was proven not crazy when I was working on the same project across both languages and someone else pointed out the difference).

Great Quote:
"Time...LINE??? Time isn't made out of lines...it is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round!" -Caboose
Latch
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2006
Location:
Posted: 5th Jul 2012 22:12
Quote: "I'm computer savvy but I never took to programming, stopping somewhere after QBasic/Visual Basic 3. I never forgave myself for not keeping up with programming and recently thought I should stop limiting myself and try to pick it up again."


When BASIC came out, it was meant to be a simple language for beginners that handled all the deep memory management, variable type handling, kernel subroutine jumping, blah blah blah. What's happened in many cases is that it has become as complex if not more so than the lower level languages like C or C++ . There are BASIC languages with Classes, User Defined Types, pointers, all things that were supposed to be made simple by the language itself. With that being said, DarkBASIC in all it's shapes, has made it simple to access Direct X stuff and easily create graphics and ultimately games. However, creating good graphics and good games is up to the programmer and can be very difficult. There aren't any shortcuts there.

If you want to have fun and just do some simple tinkering and create some graphic displays, I personally don't think you can beat DarkBASIC Classic. The ability to create top notch stuff is there, but it takes a lot of work.

DarkBASIC Pro will give you a leg up on the top notch stuff. It still takes a lot of work, but DBPro has better Direct X usage and command sets, and it compiles to some kind of machine code so it is generally faster than DBC. You can still do the simple tinkering, as most of the commands are identical to DarkBASIC Classic.

If you are serious about programming, take a class on C++ . Unless you are very disciplined, learning it on your own will probably lead you back to
Quote: "...but I never took to programming"


Enjoy your day.
TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 6th Jul 2012 11:16 Edited at: 6th Jul 2012 11:17
Quote: "That and I honestly prefer the rendering engine in DBC over DBP. It's a little crisper, I think (I was proven not crazy when I was working on the same project across both languages and someone else pointed out the difference)."


That really depends. You have a lot more things you can do with DBP when it comes to rendering, below is a game I rewrote in DBP from DBC.

DarkBASIC Classic
DarkBASIC Pro

It's impossible to have such lighting in DBC with an acceptable frame rate.

I agree with what Obese said.

TheComet

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 7th Jul 2012 04:08
@TheComet-
The JPEG compression differs between the two screenshots, partially due to the resolution. Don't you think that's a little bit biased? Also, the longer a project goes on, the more mature the code gets and the better the whole thing is overall. That's not to say that DarkBASIC Pro doesn't have better shader support, however.

@Latch-
How do you define better DirectX usage? Here's what I tell everyone who wants to switch from one to the other:

DarkBASIC Classic uses the DirectX 7 command set (formerly DirectX 6) and is advertised as supporting DirectX 8. This is all pre-DirectX 9.

DarkBASIC Pro has used the DirectX 9 command set as long as I can remember, and most recently DirectX 9.0c.

When Microsoft released DirectX 10, they stopped providing an updated version of DirectX 9 with new Windows computers. This happened when all of the computers came bundled with DirectX 9.0b, the version of DirectX Halo happens to use.

So, your typical home PC comes with support for DirectX up to 9.0b, plus the latest and greatest version of DirectX 10. This means that DarkBASIC Classic will "just work", and DarkBASIC Pro will ask you to download a DirectX update.

Keep this in mind when you go to publish your game.

As an afterthought, none of this will matter when everyone is using Windows 8 tablets, which don't support Win32 applications at all.
Latch
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2006
Location:
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 00:03
Quote: "How do you define better DirectX usage?"

If DBC is built with Direct X 8.1 functionality, then it is missing the ability to do skeletal animation for instance, where DBPro is not. Even if DBC is built based around DirectX 7 and retained mode, then vertex colors, level of detail, pick 3d objects, vectors, shadow controls, multiple cameras, and other things are missing from DBC where they exist in DBPro - these things are in DirectX 7.

Enjoy your day.
29 games
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Nov 2005
Location: not entirely sure
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 03:16
I'd say use DBPro as it's free for non-commercial use. There's no point spending money if all you want to do it have a go.

I'd also say that DBC still stands up quite well. I prefer it when I do the coding equivalent of sketching or doodling.

Quote: "...DarkBASIC Classic will "just work""


This is not entirely true as some computers don't have the d3drm. dll.

Quote: "That and I honestly prefer the rendering engine in DBC over DBP. It's a little crisper"


I know what you mean. In DBPro, objects have a more pronounced shadow effect than in DBC meaning that at certain angles objects just appear grey no matter what you've coloured them. Which can be a little annoying.

Having said all that, I don't think it really matters whether we use DBC or DBPro, we're all going to look like a bunch of luddites when the 3D commands are added into AGK.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 04:20
@Latch-
Missing functionality? Let's take a look at the examples you listed.

skeletal animation - In a lot of games, including Crysis, this is implemented in software. Also, we already have this kind of functionality if one simply wants to interpolate between keyframes. Just look at SoulHunter.

vertex colors - Got me there, but couldn't one just use a texture? The extended matrix library wraps this kind of functionality.

level of detail - That could be done in software a number of different ways.

pick 3d objects - Your ColDet library does just this!

vectors - Got me again, but to be fair DarkBASIC does support arrays.

shadow controls - Hmm...

multiple cameras - You demonstrated multiple cameras in DBC, even going so far as to use a camera as a texture!

other things - Anything important?

@29 games-
Quote: "I'd say use DBPro as it's free for non-commercial use."


Actually, I think it's free for some commercial use as well.

Quote: "This is not entirely true as some computers don't have the d3drm. dll."

The newest version of DarkBASIC Classic (1.2 or 1.14) does not need this library.

Quote: "Having said all that, I don't think it really matters whether we use DBC or DBPro, we're all going to look like a bunch of luddites when the 3D commands are added into AGK."

On a slightly less related note, I hope TGC has some way to compile Win64 games, or Windows 8 tablet users will be completely left out.
TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 09:08
Quote: "Don't you think that's a little bit biased?"


Meh, it's insignificant here. Parallax mapping, refraction, lighting and bloom is all almost impossible in DBC.

Quote: "skeletal animation - In a lot of games, including Crysis, this is implemented in software. Also, we already have this kind of functionality if one simply wants to interpolate between keyframes. Just look at SoulHunter."


Doing skeletal animation in DBC is too impractical and slow. SoulHunter did it because DBP wasn't around when the project started.

Quote: "vertex colors - Got me there, but couldn't one just use a texture? The extended matrix library wraps this kind of functionality."


Won't work at real time though, which is what the whole idea of vertex colours is about.

Quote: "multiple cameras - You demonstrated multiple cameras in DBC, even going so far as to use a camera as a texture!"


Those are all work-arounds though. It's not possible to "fuse" two cameras together in DBC to make, say, a 3D view (to use 3D glasses).

Quote: "other things - Anything important?"


Shaders, speed and compatibility.

TheComet

TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 09:26 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 09:27
May I add:

Quote: "How well does DarkBASIC Classic hold up in 2012"


I've started developing games in C++ where it's possible to take full control of DirectX 11.

-Backwards compatible (so older computers can run it)
-Supports large memory! A DBC or DBP application is unable to use more than 4 GB of RAM.
-Multithreading support
-tessellation
-Optimised texture formats and loading capabilities
-Shader model 5
-->MSAA hair
-->subsurface scattering
-->bokeh depth of field
-->shadowed point light reflections
-->ambient occlusion
-A bunch of other features, but they are too technical.

My point being, DBC and DBP are both outdated and just can't drag their weight in today's games anymore. If you want to make something commercial, DBC and DBP is not the way to go. It's only good for starters.

TheComet

Libervurto
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 22:13 Edited at: 8th Jul 2012 22:15
The default editor for DBP is bloody awful! The cursor behaves so obnoxiously and the project management system only gets in the way; you have to close the project down and create a new one just to run some different code!

That's why I still use DBC, because you can just type and run without any irritating "features". I also like to use a monochrome syntax highlighting format but the formatting options are too limited in DBP's IDE to do this.

I didn't say this before as it is purely an IDE complaint. I assume there are better IDE's out there although I haven't found any.

Shh... you're pretty.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 8th Jul 2012 22:22
@TheComet-

Long story short, I'll try to put together a bloom demo in DBC, plus some of the things you said are very biased. Also, DBC and DBP only allow up to 4GB of RAM because they are 32-bit applications. I suppose DGDK is a little different, but I hate C++.

@OBese-
I hate DBP's editor too, and for that matter I also really dislike DBC's editor.
Latch
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 00:35
Quote: "How well does DarkBASIC Classic hold up in 2012?"

For the casual hobbiest, just fine, but I think computer programming in general is moving out of the hands of the occasional tinkerer. But I don't get why Classic isn't free like Pro. If you want to tinker, free is better. Maybe I'm missing something. Is there a free version of Classic? If not, why not, when DBPro is open source?

Enjoy your day.
Latch
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 02:29
@fluffy
Quote: "skeletal animation - In a lot of games, including Crysis, this is implemented in software. Also, we already have this kind of functionality if one simply wants to interpolate between keyframes. Just look at SoulHunter.

vertex colors - Got me there, but couldn't one just use a texture? The extended matrix library wraps this kind of functionality.

level of detail - That could be done in software a number of different ways.

pick 3d objects - Your ColDet library does just this!

vectors - Got me again, but to be fair DarkBASIC does support arrays.

shadow controls - Hmm...

multiple cameras - You demonstrated multiple cameras in DBC, even going so far as to use a camera as a texture!

other things - Anything important?
"

Most if not all of these things aren't natively available - you have to build methods or work arounds to implement them. If you really wanted to get down and dirty, and think outside of the box, DBC might not be considered outdated at all. One could use the latest direct X available and all the bells in whistles if you trace the API calls DBC makes to the WinAPI and to DirectX, intercept them, and essentially run custom code through a DLL or series of DLLs. This would be a major hack - but possible - and take a whole lot of work basically making DBC no longer DBC. But if you were going this route, you might have the skill to make your own compiler and use the DBC command set to run your own DirectX and even OpenGL calls.

But we are talking about what it's command set does out of the box - not including extra DLLs and such. I doubt bkimble is interested in such complicated things.

Though, if you want to talk about that stuff too, then DBC can do just about anything that is available to your operating system - if you can make the necessary libraries and intercept the necessary processes and calls. But WHO would do this kind of hack? Not a beginner programmer. Not an intermediate programmer most likely. You'd have to really know what you were doing. I find the idea fascinating as I'd love to just be able to figure out how to get the actual pointers for the objects and images. Just that info alone could help speed up so many things and allow all kinds of rendering possibilities.

Enjoy your day.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 04:08
@Latch-

Most of these things don't require any kind of custom DLL. Sure, it would take code libraries (include files) but anyone can make those. Given enough time, I bet I could implement everything on that list, plus bloom effects, without writing a single line of non-DarkBASIC code.
TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 09:48 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 23:18
Quote: "I didn't say this before as it is purely an IDE complaint. I assume there are better IDE's out there although I haven't found any."


I agree, the default compilers are absolutely atrocious for DBC and DBP. The DBC alternative is DarkEDIT, and the DBP alternatives are CodeSurge or Indigo.

Quote: "Long story short, I'll try to put together a bloom demo in DBC, plus some of the things you said are very biased. Also, DBC and DBP only allow up to 4GB of RAM because they are 32-bit applications. I suppose DGDK is a little different, but I hate C++."


I'd like to see that at an acceptable frame rate.

Why would you hate C++? It's the language for programming games. Perhaps your statement of hating it can be traced to the fact you haven't explored it yet. You shouldn't hate the unknown. C++ is DBC with every single limitation removed. Don't you see the power? The power to do anything and everything without anything to stop you? All of the plugins and DLLs for DBC and DBP are written in C or C++ anyway.

@ Latch

If you could program like that, you probably wouldn't be using DBC anymore unless you're doing it as a challenge or something.

TheComet

Latch
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2006
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 05:34
Quote: "If you could program like that, you probably wouldn't be using DBC anymore unless you're doing it as a challenge or something."

Too true!

Enjoy your day.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 01:29 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 01:39
Quote: "I'd like to see that at an acceptable frame rate."


I made a thread about it. The framerate is pretty much up to the programmer. The demo is configured just the way I like it, but it does suck some of the life out of the CPU. It drops a spinning cube to 33/40 FPS on my laptop. You can decrease the blur level, however. I use DarkBASIC's blur function twice at the specified level so as to produce more of a genuine gauss blur type effect.

EDIT: Actually, it turns out I'm getting that framerate without the bloom as well. When I uncap the framerate, it runs at my monitor's maximum refresh rate (100 FPS). Very little lag.

Quote: "Why would you hate C++? It's the language for programming games. Perhaps your statement of hating it can be traced to the fact you haven't explored it yet. You shouldn't hate the unknown. C++ is DBC with every single limitation removed. Don't you see the power? The power to do anything and everything without anything to stop you?"


I just don't like the suite of compilers available. I prefer C and C-based languages like FreeBASIC.

Quote: "All of the plugins and DLLs for DBC and DBP are written in C or C++ anyway."


In C, really.
fllwthewolves
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2011
Location:
Posted: 8th Sep 2012 02:40
I feel like this thread got a little off topic lol.

Anyway DBC worked fine for me running on windows vista 64, havent tried it on 7 yet thought. the only problem i ran into was that the faster computer of now-a-days ended up with DBC kindof lagging behind in certain aspects. That said as long as you program to compensate it will work just as well as DBP. minus all the new awesome features of course.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 8th Sep 2012 04:45
Quote: "I feel like this thread got a little off topic lol."

I don't think so.

Quote: "Anyway DBC worked fine for me running on windows vista 64, havent tried it on 7 yet thought."

Windows 7 here, and it works fine for me. However, I am a little apprehensive about Windows 8 tablets, being that they don't support 32-bit programs.

Quote: "the only problem i ran into was that the faster computer of now-a-days ended up with DBC kindof lagging behind in certain aspects. That said as long as you program to compensate it will work just as well as DBP. minus all the new awesome features of course."

No arguments here. DBP does have some built-in features that DBC doesn't, and runs a little faster in some cases. Still, being that DBP can only compile in 32-bit doesn't make it very future-proof.
TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 9th Sep 2012 04:42 Edited at: 9th Sep 2012 04:49
Quote: "being that they don't support 32-bit programs."


This is not yet confirmed as far as I know.

Can any of you give me one example where DBC is faster than DBP?

TheComet

"Why geeks like computers: unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep." - Unknown
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 9th Sep 2012 23:37
Quote: "-Supports large memory! A DBC or DBP application is unable to use more than 4 GB of RAM."

That's being a bit disingenuous. You still have to configure your project to build a separate 64-bit executable to get access to more than 2-3 GBs of RAM per process.

Quote: "Windows 7 here, and it works fine for me. However, I am a little apprehensive about Windows 8 tablets, being that they don't support 32-bit programs."

Windows 8 tablets are in an entirely different architecture(ARM) instead of x86, so that argument is moot.

Quote: "I just don't like the suite of compilers available."

You don't even like GCC or MinGW? GCC is the king of optimizations, standards compliance, and portability. MinGW is the Windows port of GCC.

Quote: "Can any of you give me one example where DBC is faster than DBP?"

Compile time.

Quote: "Still, being that DBP can only compile in 32-bit doesn't make it very future-proof."

32-bit will be supported until all legacy enterprise applications are ported over the 64-bit or alternative architectures. I would guess that as being at least 5 years away from today. 16-bit programs are still supported on Windows 7 for goodness' sake.

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 10th Sep 2012 04:13
Quote: "Windows 8 tablets are in an entirely different architecture(ARM) instead of x86, so that argument is moot."


I was under the impression that a regular Win64 program for Vista or 7 would work on one of those tablets. Am I mistaken?

Quote: "You don't even like GCC or MinGW? GCC is the king of optimizations, standards compliance, and portability. MinGW is the Windows port of GCC."


You're damn right. I tried to use those weird little compilers, and I could never get the hang of them. Regular C compilers are so much easier.

Quote: "32-bit will be supported until all legacy enterprise applications are ported over the 64-bit or alternative architectures. I would guess that as being at least 5 years away from today."


I hope that support is never dropped for anything. We can still understand the English language of 600 years ago, yet computers don't understand the language they spoke 2 years ago!

Quote: "16-bit programs are still supported on Windows 7 for goodness' sake."


Not in the consumer edition of Windows 7.
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 10th Sep 2012 04:34
Quote: "Am I mistaken?"

I believe so.

Quote: "You're damn right. I tried to use those weird little compilers, and I could never get the hang of them. Regular C compilers are so much easier."

They are C compilers. GCC has been around since 1987, if anything, MSVC is the 'weird' compiler since it doesn't properly conform to the standard.

Quote: "I hope that support is never dropped for anything. We can still understand the English language of 600 years ago, yet computers don't understand the language they spoke 2 years ago!"

They understand the language, just not the packaging.

Quote: "Not in the consumer edition of Windows 7."

Then why do I have Win95 compatibility options on Win7 Home Premium?

Quote: "I hope that support is never dropped for anything. We can still understand the English language of 600 years ago, yet computers don't understand the language they spoke 2 years ago!"

The problem isn't understanding the language, it's understanding a specific usage of that language. It's like trying to use a cuneiform chisel on modern copy paper.

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 10th Sep 2012 10:55
Quote: "GCC has been around since 1987, if anything, MSVC is the 'weird' compiler since it doesn't properly conform to the standard."


All of the C++ compilers that I have experience with are weird.

Quote: "Then why do I have Win95 compatibility options on Win7 Home Premium?"


Win95 is 32-bit.

Quote: "The problem isn't understanding the language, it's understanding a specific usage of that language. It's like trying to use a cuneiform chisel on modern copy paper."


Just excuses. Microsoft should make an effort to provide backwards compatibility.
TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 10th Sep 2012 14:10
Quote: "You're damn right. I tried to use those weird little compilers, and I could never get the hang of them. Regular C compilers are so much easier."


GCC IS a C compiler...

Also, with that kind of attitude you'll never move forward. Why are you so helplessly klinging on to a dying (already dead?) era? It's exciting to stay at the front of the curve, at the peak of technology. Staying back with something that is outgraded by 4 generations and then cursing everyone because the newer stuff doesn't work with your old stuff is just silly.

You don't hear me saying how it sucks that I can't get my C64 code running on Windows 7 do you?

Yes, Windows 8 isn't exactly good at backwards compatibility, but Windows 8 sucks anyway. Horrible excuse, I know, but it's all I've got.

Quote: "Win95 is 32-bit."


Yes it is, but it can run 16-bit applications.

TheComet

"Why geeks like computers: unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep." - Unknown
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 10th Sep 2012 19:16
Quote: "GCC IS a C compiler..."


TCC is also a C compiler, but it doesn't compile C++ and is all that much easier for it.

Quote: "Also, with that kind of attitude you'll never move forward. Why are you so helplessly klinging on to a dying (already dead?) era? It's exciting to stay at the front of the curve, at the peak of technology. Staying back with something that is outgraded by 4 generations and then cursing everyone because the newer stuff doesn't work with your old stuff is just silly."


I'm all for using C99 and modern libraries like SDL.

Quote: "You don't hear me saying how it sucks that I can't get my C64 code running on Windows 7 do you?"


Microsoft didn't make the C64 OS, they simply made a BASIC dialect for it. Here we're talking about a company deprecating its flagship product.

Quote: "Yes it is, but it can run 16-bit applications."


That of course doesn't automatically mean that Windows 7 can run 16-bit applications in Win95 compatibility mode.
TheComet
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 10th Sep 2012 20:25
Quote: "That of course doesn't automatically mean that Windows 7 can run 16-bit applications in Win95 compatibility mode."


Well it does.

TheComet

"Why geeks like computers: unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep." - Unknown
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 01:53
Quote: "Here we're talking about a company deprecating its flagship product."

While also allowing backwards compatibility for more than a decade. Which is fantastic considering the life cycle of technology these days. I'd consider that a quite monstrous effort. Windows is actually really good at maintaining backwards compatibility with older operating systems.

Quote: " It's exciting to stay at the front of the curve, at the peak of technology"

Yet there is something to be said about using older, more stable technology. Bleeding edge sometimes cuts both ways.

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 04:02
@TheComet-

Are we talking about the 64-bit edition of Windows 7? Stores don't sell consumer PCs preloaded with 32-bit Windows 7. Also, starting with Vista, graphics support for DOS apps was dropped and you couldn't run Myst, so even if 16-bit Windows programs were supported in some limited way, the functionality would be too slim for anybody to use.

@Dar13-

It's been pretty good so far, with Windows 95 all the way up through Windows Vista, but all of this 64-bit nonsense makes me nervous. It's like Microsoft wants to trick people into believing that you can only have two bitrates at a time (as if the CPU is too weak to emulate older platforms. I run a PS2 emulator and a DOS emulator just fine, so if worst comes to worst they could at least bundle Windows with an emulator.) 32-bit and 16-bit. 64-bit and 32-bit but NOT 16-bit. What kind of bassackwards nonsense is this? This is why people use Linux.
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 06:07
Quote: "This is why people use Linux."

Linux breaks binary ABI compatibility with every other minor update much less every major update. You'd have to recompile the program in order to use an older Linux program on a newer Linux kernel.

I do agree that the least they could do is package an emulator for 16-bit(though it could be argued that they already have through the XP Mode in one of the higher levels of Windows 7).

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 06:56
@Dar13-

Quote: "one of the higher levels of Windows 7"


That's just it. They're phasing it out. What right does a company like that have to destroy the lowest common denominator?
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 13:32
Quote: "That's just it. They're phasing it out. What right does a company like that have to destroy the lowest common denominator?"

Because it's their time and money that's being spent to keep backwards-compatibility. If you really want 16-bit programs, I suggest you pick up a license for Win95 or Win3.1 and use it in a VM. That's about as good as it's going to get.

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 13:55
@Dar13-

It would cost them nothing to retain 16-bit compatibility, but instead they opt to remove it. They go out of their way to drop support for an older version of Windows so they can keep selling the newer editions. It has nothing to do with time and money other than the money that they are gaining by abusing their monopoly.
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 11th Sep 2012 19:20
Quote: "It would cost them nothing to retain 16-bit compatibility"

False. Look at how they managed to get MS-DOS 16-bit programs running in Win95:link.
That's a lot of work for a program that's almost 2 decades old.

Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 12th Sep 2012 06:11
There we go. Another Microsoft fan tries to confuse us with a long article full of boring words. Windows supported 16-bit graphics mode programs all the way up through XP. They dropped graphics mode with Vista, because it didn't "mesh" with their OS. Now they're doing away with 16-bit programs entirely. As a developer, wouldn't you want to support every operating system, as far back as it goes? Not according to Microsoft. Only the latest and greatest distros are worthy of our half-assed indie games if we at all intend to support modern computer users. This kind of consumerism only helps Microsoft.
Dar13
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 12th Sep 2012 13:43 Edited at: 12th Sep 2012 17:23
Quote: "There we go. Another Microsoft fan tries to confuse us with a long article full of boring words. Windows supported 16-bit graphics mode programs all the way up through XP. They dropped graphics mode with Vista, because it didn't "mesh" with their OS. Now they're doing away with 16-bit programs entirely. As a developer, wouldn't you want to support every operating system, as far back as it goes?"

With that point of view, you should be lambasting Apple and the Linux distros since they break program compatibility in every single major update. Versus Microsoft, which broke program compatibility over the course of TWO DECADES, and they provide you with an XP virtual machine(with its own XP license, which is why it's in the Professional or higher editions).

Why am I a fan of Microsoft? I simply posted an article that detailed how much work it was to implement backwards-compatibility with 16-bit programs in Windows 95. The fact that you found it confusing reveals that you don't know much about how much work it is to have backwards-compatibility while moving forward.

If you're so against Microsoft and its "consumerism" then don't use it. Go use OSX or Linux or whatever alternative operating system you want. Though if you're expecting better backwards-compatibility, you'll be sorely disappointed.

EDIT: I apologize for the severely offtopic course this thread has taken, as I was partially responsible for that course change.

Ontopic: DBC has actually held up fairly well over the years, I'm considering buying it just to see what if I could create some of the more advanced functionality that I'm used to in DBP/C++.

Libervurto
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 12th Sep 2012 17:07
What does this have to do with Dark Basic?

Shh... you're pretty.
Michaelkennedy 100
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Sep 2012
Location:
Posted: 28th Sep 2012 01:02
I wish I had stuck to Kodu it does not work properly on win 7 - I give up!

MICK
Escher
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2012
Location:
Posted: 20th Oct 2012 09:37
Hi everyone,

I'm absolutly new here and just want to know:

Can I just start with DBP and use the Beginner Guide Game Programming book. Or is there just a difference in the language?
Latch
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2006
Location:
Posted: 21st Oct 2012 00:17
Hello, welcome!

You can just start with DBPro. The languages are basically the same as they are both DarkBASIC but DBPro expands the functionality and adds additional commands and options.

Enjoy your day.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2019-09-17 21:52:59
Your offset time is: 2019-09-17 21:52:59