New Free Software From Solecismic!

[Ben E Lou]

If y'all haven't noticed, Jim has created a free FTP client, available for download from http://www.solecismic.com/jftp.php. I haven't been around here much this week (busy), but I am using the FTP client and it is great and easy-to-use. Y'all ought to give this sucker a try.

[FBPro]

Sweet.....

[Passacaglia]

All right...who had "FTP Client" in the betting pool?

[Franklinnoble]

Front Office FTP Client... hmm... not exactly what I would have guessed.

[Franklinnoble]

So, umm... why?

[Maple Leafs]

It works well, but I found it too spread-sheety. I'd like some nicer graphics next time.

[Simms]

*hoping it will eventually be integrated into FOF for multiplayer purposes*

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

It works well, but I found it too spread-sheety. I'd like some nicer graphics next time.

Are you not feeling enough immersion in the files you are loading and downloading?

[Bonegavel]

I see you have to negotiate a port number and if they don't accept 21, you are screwed.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Simms

*hoping it will eventually be integrated into FOF for multiplayer purposes*

Let the next round of speculation begin.

[SnowMan]

Is there sound??????

[sabotai]

If it doesn't have real players or expansion, I'm not interested.

[Franklinnoble]

Are there red and green bars indicating the download/upload progress?

[k0ruptr]

make sure you put in the license code correct or all the ip address will be scrambled

[CraigSca]

Not to be too much of a conspiracy theorist but...

it seems like he's making a foray into .Net - perhaps this was a test app for those purposes?

He also mentions the Front Office Football screen, to help with name recognition - would this mean he's using .Net to write another football sim?

Please, please be TCY2...

[Alf]

Yeah, there's .Net now

[Gallifrey]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Please, please be TCY2...

Right on!

[Solecismic]

You are correct that I bought Visual C#.Net this month, and have been learning it for potential use with the next game.

It has some powerful features, and makes integration of custom graphics much easier than other products I've used. The button on the attributes screen being one example.

However, the .Net environment for pre-XP operating systems seems very buggy. I'm afraid that if I use .Net, I'll eliminate a good portion of my customer base. Is that the same experience others are having? What does the software development community say about .Net?

I'm not an expert on FTP protocol by any means (though I did spend a lot of time with C-PIC in the early '90s). My understanding is port 21 is the default. You can use PASV mode to get around a local firewall (I need to do that myself), but if the server doesn't accept a 21 connect, this client just isn't going to work.

[Vince]

I think HeavyReign uses .Net (doesn't he?). If my thought is true, it's basically killed his non-XP customer base, as they can't run FBCB.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

However, the .Net environment for pre-XP operating systems seems very buggy. I'm afraid that if I use .Net, I'll eliminate a good portion of my customer base. Is that the same experience others are having? What does the software development community say about .Net?

.NET rocks, but you're right, you will eliminate some people who haven't made the switch to XP yet (as far as I know). It's awesome for Enterprise apps where you can control the environment, but it is still a few years away from being all that useful for shrink-wrapped stuff.

My .02

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Vince

I think HeavyReign uses .Net (doesn't he?). If my thought is true, it's basically killed his non-XP customer base, as they can't run FBCB.

I thought FBCB just had problems on 98 and ME? Runs fine on my Win 2k box.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

However, the .Net environment for pre-XP operating systems seems very buggy. I'm afraid that if I use .Net, I'll eliminate a good portion of my customer base. Is that the same experience others are having? What does the software development community say about .Net?

Neither of the two shops I've worked in since .NET came out has made the conversion due to the OS limitations. It's great for web development because most of the work is done on the server side, but it'll likely be a few more years before you can put out an .NET app that won't restrict your customer base.

[Franklinnoble]

There can't be THAT many people still running on Win9x... can there?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You are correct that I bought Visual C#.Net this month, and have been learning it for potential use with the next game.

It has some powerful features, and makes integration of custom graphics much easier than other products I've used. The button on the attributes screen being one example.

However, the .Net environment for pre-XP operating systems seems very buggy. I'm afraid that if I use .Net, I'll eliminate a good portion of my customer base. Is that the same experience others are having? What does the software development community say about .Net?

I'm not an expert on FTP protocol by any means (though I did spend a lot of time with C-PIC in the early '90s). My understanding is port 21 is the default. You can use PASV mode to get around a local firewall (I need to do that myself), but if the server doesn't accept a 21 connect, this client just isn't going to work.

So, why did you make an FTP client, anyway? Just an exercise?

[HeavyReign]

Originally Posted by Vince

I think HeavyReign uses .Net (doesn't he?). If my thought is true, it's basically killed his non-XP customer base, as they can't run FBCB.

I haven't moved over to .Net so far. There were other reasons that the game had issues on the older operating systems. Its hard to say how many people were unable to buy the game because of this. I just cringe whenever I see someone mention that though. I'm sure things are better for Jim but I can't afford to be giving away sales for reasons like that. I'm sure he would agree even with the FOF having a larger fan base.

[korme]

Probably to support Mulitplayer FOF Frank.. you can't figure that out?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

Probably to support Mulitplayer FOF Frank.. you can't figure that out?

Well, color me stupid, but unless the software includes an FTP server, I don't really see how FTP is the best way to transfer multiplayer files.

[korme]

*looks for markers*

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

There can't be THAT many people still running on Win9x... can there?

As of 12/03, there were at least a lot of companies still using 9x

AssetMetrix, a company that assists businesses in migrating to newer operating systems, released a report last week about the number of business computers still using Windows 9x operating systems. The survey was conducted with 670 companies, ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 PCs, and a total of 372,129 PCs.

According to the survey, 80.2% of the companies had at least one Windows 9x computer. Of that 80 percent, 39.2% of the operating systems were of the Win9x variety (14.7$ were Windows 95 and 12.5% were Windows 98). The standard deviation on these results was 31.3%, meaning that in some companies as much as 70% of their computers were running Windows 9x.

The numbers for all of the companies are also telling:

Windows 2000	52.6%
Windows 9x	27.2%
Windows NT 4.0	13.3%
Windows XP	6.6%
Windows Me	0.2%

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1215023068.htm

I had more trouble finding data on home users & OS choices, but from early 2003, here's a chart that shows a breakdown
http://www.smartcomputing.com/editor...7.jpg&caption=

It said
Win 98 - 35.12%
Win2k - 20.95%
WinXP - 16.17%
Other - 15.84%
WinMe -9.71%
Mac - 2.21%

I'm sure that has shifted (I saw a later reference somewhere to XP becoming the 2nd most popular OS in use, but it didn't cite a figure) but I'd say there's still a sizable contingent who are 2k or older.

[Solecismic]

For those who looked at the page, you'd see my reasoning for having written that particular program.

No, I would not consider something that made projects unusable for those with 95/98/Me (and .Net won't work at all in Windows '95). I was wondering if the bugginess I was seeing on Windows Me was possibly my coding, but it seems .Net is not ready for prime time.

Just one more reason to hate Microsoft, I guess. They've got their evangelists all over the place yakking it up about how .Net is the only way to go. Why can't they just be honest and say that .Net is a nice toy for developers in controlled environments, but nothing more?

I guess the kew1 d00dz will just have to hate my next game in advance just because I don't have transparent bitmaps and whirligigs. Unless I decide to learn DirectX.

[VPI97]

BTW, thanks Jim.

It was great timing for me...I just got a new PC last week (AMD 3200+...I'm pimpin now ) and am still in the process of setting thing up on the new machine. I needed a straight forward FTP program.

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I needed a straight forward FTP program.

Then forget about Front Office FTP. . . The AI sucks.

[hukarez]

Do pre-XP operating systems offer a .NET Framework update in their Windows Update scan?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

There can't be THAT many people still running on Win9x... can there?

It seems like there might be a sizable minority. I know when FBCB came out last fall that there were a lot of folks complaining about its slowness in simming games, etc. and they were all on Win98SE or ME.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As of 12/03, there were at least a lot of companies still using 9x

AssetMetrix, a company that assists businesses in migrating to newer operating systems, released a report last week about the number of business computers still using Windows 9x operating systems. The survey was conducted with 670 companies, ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 PCs, and a total of 372,129 PCs.

According to the survey, 80.2% of the companies had at least one Windows 9x computer. Of that 80 percent, 39.2% of the operating systems were of the Win9x variety (14.7$ were Windows 95 and 12.5% were Windows 98). The standard deviation on these results was 31.3%, meaning that in some companies as much as 70% of their computers were running Windows 9x.

The numbers for all of the companies are also telling:

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1215023068.htm

I had more trouble finding data on home users & OS choices, but from early 2003, here's a chart that shows a breakdown
http://www.smartcomputing.com/editor...7.jpg&caption=

It said
Win 98 - 35.12%
Win2k - 20.95%
WinXP - 16.17%
Other - 15.84%
WinMe -9.71%
Mac - 2.21%

I'm sure that has shifted (I saw a later reference somewhere to XP becoming the 2nd most popular OS in use, but it didn't cite a figure) but I'd say there's still a sizable contingent who are 2k or older.

Wow. You definitely did a lot more homework than I did.

[sabotai]

100% of my dad's business computers run Windows XP....yup, all 1 of them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

All right...who had "FTP Client" in the betting pool?

And where is druez's review?

[oykib]

I used WinME up until about 12 hours ago when my new system was delivered.

I've made the jump all the way to Win2000. I don't like what I've heard about XP.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For those who looked at the page, you'd see my reasoning for having written that particular program.

No, I would not consider something that made projects unusable for those with 95/98/Me (and .Net won't work at all in Windows '95). I was wondering if the bugginess I was seeing on Windows Me was possibly my coding, but it seems .Net is not ready for prime time.

Windows Me is the worst piece of junk Microsoft ever released. It is less stable than Win95. Do not make any assumptions about the stability of your development environment based on performance in Me. Me should never have seen the light of day. The Win9x architecture just can't keep up with hardware advances.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Just one more reason to hate Microsoft, I guess. They've got their evangelists all over the place yakking it up about how .Net is the only way to go. Why can't they just be honest and say that .Net is a nice toy for developers in controlled environments, but nothing more?

I guess the kew1 d00dz will just have to hate my next game in advance just because I don't have transparent bitmaps and whirligigs. Unless I decide to learn DirectX.

First off, you'll have more stability problems with DirectX than anything else. See the FOF2k fiasco for one example. You get into the realm of unstable drivers so easily it's not funny. You can do everything 100% right and still bluescreen peoples' computers just because they've got some cheapo video card and haven't updated the drivers in 3 years.

On .NET, I've enjoyed fiddling with it, but I have not yet tried running stuff on other boxes, so I can't comment on its stability on the other Operating Systems. But I'd verify for yourself rather than listening to what people on the web say, unless you can find another professional developer that's made the leap and get their experiences. Have you seen the Quake demo that was ported to C#/.NET?

Originally Posted by oykib

I've made the jump all the way to Win2000. I don't like what I've heard about XP.

Here's an example of why. What have you heard that you don't like about XP? I've been using XP at work since it came out, and at home since shortly after. It's a great OS, very stable for me, much more stable than the other Windows versions. Win2k is pretty good, but it has some performance issues with games due to how the kernel interacts with video drivers. There are lots of rumors about XP doing "bad things", but most of them are patently false, spread by people who just don't like Microsoft. You might find examples of bad things in XP, but I'm pretty sure you'll find less bad things in XP than you'll find in Win2k or Win9x.

I did a computer upgrade for a friend recently, and part of it involved a hand-me-down to his wife who was used to Win95. He wanted an upgrade to Win98SE. That's about the scariest computer experience I've had in a long time. It works, but I absolutely do not miss the Win9x OSes and trying to get them to install and run.

[Arles]

I was looking at using .NET as well and found that there is very little confirmation of how it works with older operating systems. Some said it would work fine with ME and 2000 if you included a 50-75 MB "Framework Update" with your program install. Others said it didn't work reliably on anything other than XP. As Jim said, outside of controlled work evironments and some internet server use, .NET seems like a very risky road to go in development right now.

Hopefully, more data will come out on how it works with Legacy systems in the next 6-8 months.

[Cringer]

Is it too late to go back to Win 3.1?

[Ben E Lou]

Bump...un-stick....archive.