I've inherited a VB6 project from about 6-8 years ago. It uses SmartTabs and Smart OutlookBar, two licensed controls from Adroit Technologies that were shipped (in trial versions) with the original VB6.
Without licensing the controls I can't compile or debug the project, and although I've got the old license details, the license is tied to a specific development machine so they won't work for me (the original development machine has long since gone).
Adroit Technologies (AdroitTech.in) seems to have dropped off the radar, their contact details don't work and searches don't turn up anything.
Any ideas folks on how to get round this license issue?
Mike
Update: I've managed to edit the source code to eliminate the need for the SmartTabs control ... that just leaves the OutlookBar one to sort out!
I've now found another control in the project which has the same issues. This time called XE-Date and again from a defunct company. However, this one is relatively easy to replace using a mixture of standard controls.
Related
We are working on a project that involves the conversion of old DOS based screen panels to Windows based graphical user interface using GUI Screen IO.
We got in touch with the company recently to purchase the software but company is apparently in transition of selling and have discontinued the business of providing the licensed S/W. So, we are unable to get a licensed copy of this GUI ScreenIO s/w which would impact our project.
Q -- Has anyone ever heard of another presentation layer s/w that is very similar to GUI ScreenIO and can work with native Cobol? Please let us know.
Thanks,
Kishan
Your info about the discontinuation of Gui ScreenIO comes a bit as a surprise to me.
I am a GuiScreenIO user myself and have heard nothing from the vendor about an end-of-life strategy, what so ever, and was billed for support just a few months ago!
If what you state is true (and I have no reason to doubt your writing), I will have to look for an alternative myself as well.
There is an alternative product called SP2 (Flexus) that has an approach comparable to GuiScreenIO. Since you are at the beginning of the character-based-to-windows-transition you might want to take a peek at it! ;)
Feel free to ask if you need more info about transitioning character based cobol applications to Windows.
Kind regards,
Paul
i'm facing a challenge of rebrushing and updating an almost 10-years old Screenweaver project, and looking for a decent modern swf-exe convertor. Don't have much time to evaluate all the options, therefore i'd like to hear responses with actual working experience with such a tool.
Since WinAPI interaction is a must, the default projector is not an option.
Similar questions (no concrete answers there)
Package SWF into an EXE or APP
Create an EXE from a SWF using Flex 3 without requiring AIR?
Many thanks
UPD: 300 bounty for anyone who can help me with a practical answer.
I've been experimenting with different SWF projectors for a long time now, and so far I think I've tried most if not all of them. I've explained in more detail the best projectors I have used below.
MDM Zinc
http://www.multidmedia.com/software/zinc/
I remember back in when I had Vista that MDM had quite a few bugs running under that OS. It took a while for them to fix those bugs - the bugs didn't stop it from running, but really interfered with the functioning of some methods in the program. For this reason, I decided not to continue testing Zinc and moved on to another projector. Saying that though, I'm certain they have fixed those bugs now.
The program itself has a nice intuitive interface, and allows you create screensaver as well as EXEs (which is obviously good for you).
The product is pricey - currently at $349.99, so this put me off.
You can also generate Mac and Linux projectors which is very attractive, but requires an additional license for each which does cost a lot of money.
SWF Studio
http://www.northcode.com/
This was one of the projectors I really enjoyed working with. It's fully featured, has great community support and the developers are always on hand to help. The projectors it generates are compatible with all Windows operating systems, and I've never had any problems with bugs on this one.
Northcode also offer a student license for SWF Studio for $49. I nearly purchased a license with these guys but the only reason why I didn't was because I found another projector which was better for my scenario which I will come onto in a moment.
I can tell you that one of the reasons why I didn't use this projector (it does sound trivial) is because it had a large file size. SWF Studio allows you to select what size projector you want in terms of filesize - with options like tiny and compact I think but the smaller file types might have dependencies with other files in the directory. This means that you would have to bundle your application with some folders and additional files as well as the EXE itself.
SWF Studio also has the option to create screensavers.
mProjector
http://www.screentime.com/software/flash-projector
mProjector has gone up a version (from 3 to 4) since I last used it, so it may incorporate a lot more features in this version. I remember that the product is very good with transparency, and showcases some 'screen buddies' which use transparency to virtually walk about your screen. The reason why I didn't use this projector is because it didn't have as many Actionscript functions as I would have liked, but I believe it has a lot more nowadays. In your project this wouldn't be so much of a problem because you want a screensaver.
It is reasonably priced at $399 for both Windows and Mac compatibility, but you can buy just Windows or Mac if you wish for a cheaper price.
Janus Flash
I was going to explain this product in more detail but I have now realised that the website no longer exists! Janus is the projector I liked the most and ended up using because of the sheer amount of features available for use in your code.
Like all the projectors I have mentioned above, each one adds functionality to flash which you don't usually get with an SWF. Each product includes pre-built actionscript methods which can interface with the operating system itself to do things you can't do in the Flash sandbox. For example, each one of these projectors allows you to manipulate files (add, edit, delete e.t.c.) on the computer. Janus had the most methods available out of all the projectors I tried. This is partially because Janus used the .NET framework (which meant that .NET 2.0 was required on the system you were executing the projector on).
Also like MDM Zinc, this product allowed you to create applications for the Mac too. I managed to get a cheaper price too when I contacted them directly explaining that I was a student. I recently contacted Janus-Flash to ask about the future of the product, and they said that they may re-release Janus in the future, but for now it's off the market.
Some other products I have used which are worth a mention but I haven't explained in detail: SWFKit, Jugglor, F-IN-BOX (more developer releated as it required cutting code).
A quick search brings up these which might be worth a look: Flash2Me, Flash EXE Builder and SWF to Screensaver.
For your project I think the best option would be SWF Studio. It has lots of nice scripting features you can use to interface with the OS, and is nicely priced too at $299 for a full license.
I hope this helps in your decision for what projector to use, and will save you from trying out many different projectors like I did over several months!
We support a lot of Win32 functionality directly in our core API so chances are you may not even have to make a direct API call, but if you do...
SWF Studio has an advanced Plugin API that allows you to write custom plugins in C++, C# or VB.NET so you can call win32 or .NET functions. We created our own ummanaged to managed code shim so you can write a native .NET plugin and call it from SWF Studio just as easily as you can write a Win32 plugin.
There's no difference between how you call a SWF Studio function in AS2 or AS3. We have maintained 100% backward compatibility in our API. Whether you're using AS2 or AS3, your calls will just work. And they'll continue to work.
However, the place we really shine is support. I created SWF Studio and I'm still in the forums EVERY day answering questions and fixing bugs.
My experience here is from a year ago.
Having worked with mProjector I can tell you that the AS3 API is quite robust and easy to use. I was able to wrap a large swf-based project using external assets up into an EXE without a lot of problems. The UI for mProjector's project gui leaves something to be desired, but the actual hooks to the file system were easy to use.
The difficulty is that not all of it is documented. In fact there were as of a year ago a lot of undocumented packages.
My only real problem with mprojector was that in AS3 there wasn't any support for SharedObjects. Someone in their community worked around this and made their solution available. It does of course make use of storing a file on the local system.
This overall compared favorably against Zinc which was extraordinarily complex, slow to compile, and worse than having no documentation all the docs I needed were flat-out wrong.
I ruled out Jugglor almost immediately. It never successfuly compiled anything.
Since this is an old project you're talking about, and written in AS2, I can't speak to that side of it. I can say however that programs like Zinc and mProjector have been around a lot longer than AS3 has, and that the same hooks that are available in AS3 seemed to be available in AS2 also. The possibility exists that there may be more such hooks in AS2 since it's been supported for longer, but I cannot vouch for this at all.
I have used all of these applications, but most of all I liked theFlajector - a program that converts flash movies (swf) to exe files. You can include a flash player in generated applications and they will use it. In other words, the applications will work even if no flash player is installed. Also, Flajector can create windowless applications from flash movies. You can extend your applications using plugins. Using standard classes you can work with files and more.
I have inherited a project from a client, who believes he has all the source code, but unfortunately this particular VB6 application used a bunch of custom controls that the original programmer will not give up (he may in fact have purchased the licenses himself, so he may be right in not turning them over, on the other hand since he has been cut-off from the project there may be a bit of spite involved - I have no idea and it doesn't really matter.)
Anyway, the project uses the following controls:
PVOutlookBar.ocx
PVList.ocx
PVCombo.ocx
PVXplore8.ocx
PVDateEdit.ocx
PVTime.ocx
PVDt80.ocx
and as far as I can tell they were from a company called Protoview which was bought up by Infragistics...and none of these controls are supported anymore, though they can be purchased at full price.
My client is very reluctant to spend over $1000 to get his hands on these controls, especially since
1) they are no longer supported at all by the vendor
2) we have no guarantee that if these are purchased that it will work (i.e. maybe there is a lot of other stuff missing too).
3) there are no refunds, even if we bought the wrong stuff...
4) we only need to get it running enough to start the port to a more updated language, either vb.net or C# (and thus would need to possibly buy the controls again).
My question is, is it legal if someone had these controls, and was no longer using them, to sell them? I would assume that the if you were no longer using a piece of software, you could transfer the license (the hope would be to find someone who has them lying around and would be willing to part with them for a lot less than buying the new).
Anyone know any sources for buying "old" software, especially controls such as these? I found Retrosoftware website (no longer operational) but they don't have any of the stuff I need.
Thanks.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think the legality of transferring a license depends on the original license terms for the controls used by ProtoView. Some licenses allow it and some explicitly forbid it.
Certainly the license agreement Infragistics is currently using does not allow you to transfer the license.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been evaluating the wide range of installation and web deployment solutions available for Windows applications. I will just clarify here (without too much detail, these tools have been covered in other questions) my understanding of the options:
NSIS - Free tool that generates setup executables. Small binary. Specialized, sometimes obtuse, scripting language.
Inno Setup - Free tools for setup executables. Various binary compression schemes. Pascal scripting engine.
WIX - Free toolset to generate MSI binaries. XML definitions language.
WIX ClickThrough - Additional tools for packaging, web download and auto update detection (now part of WIX core).
InstallShield - Commercial development environment for installation packaging. Generates MSI binaries. C-like InstallScript language.
Wise - Commercial development environment for installation packaging. Generates MSI binaries.
ClickOnce - Visual Studio supported framework for publishing applications to a webserver, with automatic detection of updates. No support for custom installation requirements (INI files, registry etc ...). Packages setup as an MSI binary.
Install Aware - Commercial development environment for installation. Generates MSI binaries. Automatic Update framework (Web Update).
If I have missed any, please let me know.
And found some useful discussions of these technologies on StackOverflow:
Best Simple Install System
Best choice for Windows installers
Alternatives to ClickOnce
I have worked with a few of these solutions, as well as a handful of proprietary internal installation solutions. They are mostly concerned with packing installations and providing a framework for developers to access the run time environment. With the growing requirement for web deployment and automatic software updates, I expected to find more of a consensus among developers on a framework for web delivery of software and subsequent updates, I haven't really found that consensus. There are certainly solutions available (ClickOnce, ClickThrough, InstallShield Update Service), but they each have considerable limitations (please correct me if I mis-represent any of these). I would be interested in a framework that provided some of the following:
Third party hosting/management of updates.
Access to client environment (INI files, registry, etc..).
User registration/activation.
Feedback/Error reporting
This is leaving me with the strong impression that the best way to approach the web deployment problem is through a custom built proprietary solution (possibly leveraging existing installer packaging). I have seen this sort of solution work well for a number of successful applications:
FileZilla - HTTP request to update.filezilla-project.org to check for updates, downloads an NSIS binary (I think) and then shuts down to run the install.
Automatic updates for Massively Multiplayer games are entirely necessary and universally implemented using proprietary systems.
So, at last, to my questions:
Have I missed a web deployment framework that will provide the functionality I need?
Are my requirements too specific to reasonably expect a third party framework to deliver?
Should I buy or build?
I would urge caution on Installaware. We recently had a shocking experience with their customer support.
We followed one of their sample projects to the letter which failed miserably. Raised a support ticket with customer support and were told it was going to cost us $199 for them to look at fixing their own code.
We then raised the same issue in the user forums and were promptly banned because this constituted cross posting and was not allowed. Even though this is not mentioned in their terms and conditions. In fact, they banned our IP so no one in our company can post to the forums.
A very poor experience and one we wont repeat. We are now looking to replace Installaware as soon as possible.
Purchase Installaware at your own peril.
Absolutely agree with poster who said to stay away from InstallAware. They've had a long history of really absurd ethics problems, and they treat their own customers horribly. They can be downright abusive and insulting.
Beware InstallAware!
I completely agree about InstallAware.
After using WiX, NSIS and InstallAware, I have to humbly admit that they were all overkill for what I really need as a software developer. There are no projects that I've done so far which couldn't be deployed using the Visual Studio deployment project.
Is it limited? Yes.
It is also very simple to learn an use. Moreover, you actually can do really neat things like automatically create patches (.MSP files) by using techniques as described here
I fully understand that you can't do everything inside of a Visual Studio setup project, but it's rather surprising what you can accomplish. It's free, it's easy and, frankly, for general use is a better option than spending endless hours learning WiX's mind-boggling XML (impressive as it is), or InstallAware's verbose scripts...
With VS Setup, it's drag'n'drop & build'n'deploy. Every other solution I've tried had set backs... they can't automatically detect your project output... or need special filters so as not to include unwanted outputs from the build.
My suggestion is thus: If you simply wish to get your project deployed, then learn:
How to build a custom installer class, and
How to author your own pre-requisite packages
These are both reasonably easy skills to master, and satisfy the needs of most developers.
If your specific requirements are core to your business; ie part of your business is to provide a smooth and user-friendly deployment/installation and you feel that none of the available deployment libraries can let you achieve this, then certainly go ahead and build your own.
If your specific requirements would be nice to have but they do not make a significant part of your business; ie the end user will not typically be expecting or needing a smooth installation procedure, or will never need to do that themselves (ie they pass that step onto their IT department), then the need to build your own just for your own specific requirements is likely to be outweighed by the extra effort that would involve.
I think that your impression that you will be needing a custom solution is a sound one; it seems like your requirements are going to be key to the experience of your product, especially if you need really smooth automatic updates and feedback.
We have a collection of commercial MFC/C++ applications which we sell using Stingray Objective Toolkit, we have source code license and have ported it in the past to Solaris/IRIX/HP-UX/AIX using Bristol Technologies WindU (Windows API on UNIX, including MFC).
Any long story short recently about 18 months ago we ported Stingray to Win64, but a long a tedious task, during this time I did some research on commercial and open source alternative MFC extension libraries things like Ultimate Toolbox and Prof-UIS.
Has anyone else used Stingray and moved to an alternative?
If so which one would you suggest?
What were the main perils of the move?
Yes, we haved moved away from Stingray. It depends on what Stingray components you are using. For the grid control, you can use the free MFC gridcontrol from www.codeproject.com or the commercial one from http://www.bcgsoft.com/. The free one is OK but development has stalled, so no modern UI rendering etc.
The 'layout editor' Stingray component can be replaced by the one from bcgsoft.com, but I don't have experience with that - we rewrote the functionality we needed from that on our own (it was only a subset of what Stingray provided).
As for alternative MFC toolboxes, I suggest bcgsoft because part of their toolbox is in the Visual Studio Feature Pack so it's free and fits very well with VS. I have looked at Ultimate Toolbox (stay away from it, stale code that isn't updated anymore) and Prof-UIs (OK but I found it not so easy to integrate).
Now that BCG is part of the 'official' MFC I don't see a reason to choose something else than BCG (except for maybe the cost, if you need a free alternative you can look at codeproject).
I have limited experience with Stingray.
However, I want to suggest trying CodeJock's Xtreme Toolkit Pro (http://www.codejock.com). Its GUI is very good and its supported very well.
I have been using Stingray for last eight years or so, and have looked at moving off it a couple of times. So far, I've decided against, principally because I have ported a version to Windows CE & Mobile and don't see much else giving the same solution on this platform. While Stingray isn't perfect, they have now got a 64bit version, and it's a pretty stable product.
What I am doing, is replacing the very weak areas of Stingray, such as the XML support, with alternatives. In this case I went with Expat for performance reasons.
The perils of moving? You could go from something stable but old fashioned to pretty but flakey ;) In my case, I would also kill a fair number of my automated test scripts that work at GUI level.
Edit: Just to add a bit to the above, I moved from VS2003 to VS2008 this week and at the same time Objective Studio 2006 v2 to Objective Studio 10.1. The transition was pretty seamless, with one minor glitch that was promptly handled by RogueWave tech support. Even this would have gone unnoticed if we didn't have a very extensive GUI regression test suite. IMO, Stingray is a very mature, well supported, feature rich and most importantly stable product. I for won't be moving of it any time soon without very good reason.