Page 1 of 1

MANY different items to choose from

PostPosted: 06/04/08, 6:34 pm
by software_dragon
Taken From Their "About" Section: "AppZilla Inc is now one of the leading producers of windows-based utility software and services. The company specializes in software development tools and services....." ** They Have MANY different items to choose from...and in all categories...believe its all Freeware too..!!

Check It Out !!: WebSite

PostPosted: 06/04/08, 7:52 pm
by bob
thanks, we'll look

PostPosted: 06/04/08, 8:08 pm
by JohnT
System Requirements:
Windows 98/ME/NT4/2000/XP/2003.
.NET Framework Version 1.1.


Don't do .NET here!! 8)

PostPosted: 06/05/08, 3:27 am
by bob
Why not, John?

PostPosted: 06/05/08, 10:07 am
by JohnT
I gotta be anti-something Bob!!! Actually I got bit on .NET once in its early days....once bitten twice shy and there's something about downloading a 1mb app and then downloading a 23mb add-on. If .NET is so god-awful great why are applications running on everything from version 1.1 to 3.5...should I install all versions to have my bases covered? :lol:

PostPosted: 06/05/08, 3:42 pm
by RedRage
JohnT wrote:I gotta be anti-something Bob!!! Actually I got bit on .NET once in its early days....once bitten twice shy and there's something about downloading a 1mb app and then downloading a 23mb add-on. If .NET is so god-awful great why are applications running on everything from version 1.1 to 3.5...should I install all versions to have my bases covered? :lol:


I second that notion. the only reason i do .net now is cause some version came with vista and sp1 upgraded it. on my old XP it still doesn't have .net.. i think

PostPosted: 06/05/08, 10:05 pm
by SOD
So much for a unified platform. This was supposed to
help the dll conflict situation mainly for dbs. heh a good example is the world famous Crystal Reports uses calls to dlls that are version dependent not to mention arcane. Write a new db app and on your machine and it blows up
when confronted with C.R. or a similar situation. dll versioning is a bitch.

PostPosted: 06/06/08, 12:15 am
by JohnT
RedRage wrote:I second that notion. the only reason i do .net now is cause some version came with vista and sp1 upgraded it. on my old XP it still doesn't have .net.. i think


MS has a link somewhere on there .NET pages about how to do a fast check, whether its installed and what version.

PostPosted: 06/06/08, 2:27 am
by bob
Some of those apps are too good to leave out

PostPosted: 06/06/08, 8:38 am
by SOD
What gets me is the overhead associated with .net.
it's huge, and MS has an option to hide the mem oberhead from the end user.

PostPosted: 06/06/08, 7:33 pm
by JohnT
SOD wrote:What gets me is the overhead associated with .net.
it's huge, and MS has an option to hide the mem oberhead from the end user.


I had disremembered that one........they must also have an option to hide the users memory from the user. :lol:

PostPosted: 06/06/08, 11:28 pm
by SOD
@John LOL

It's something you can do when you compile the app.