I don't really get the difference between 2.0 and 1.1.
the registers aren't even showing up as 64bit format in 2.0.
Also 32bit apps take way too long to process with.
Plugins aren't even fully supported.
Is it possible to debug 64bit apps in 1.1 managing the problems
that I listed above?
I'm using 64bit Windows 8.1 and I;m trying to debug a 64bit sample file.
OllyDbg currently does not support debugging 64 bit apps, however the developer stated to start the development of a 64 bit version as soon as his free times allows him. For a 64 bit debugger, take a look at WinDBG.
Update 2021: These days, x64dbg is also an excellent choice. Its design is strongly inspired by OllyDbg.
From the Oracle website here:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/windows/downloads/index-090165.html
This is for their latest Oracle Data Access Components, 64-bit ODAC 11.2 Release 4 (11.2.0.3.0) for Windows x64. I want to use the developer tools (ODT) but they aren't available in 64 bit (probably because VS2010 is still 32-bit). From the site:
Important: The 32-bit Oracle Developer Tools for Visual Studio download is required for Entity Framework design-time features. The above download fully supports Entity Framework deployment, but does not contain design-time tools.
I don't use EF (I use the Mindscape LightSpeed product as it's usually 3 or 4 years ahead of EF) but the principle is the same - VS2010 and LightSpeed are 32-bit apps and can't load/use x64 libs.
I would like to use the 32-bit tools (ODT) to develop my app and deploy the app using the x64 ODAC. Has anyone done this? Can it be done? Anybody?
If it matters, this is for a WCF service running on a virtual Windows Server 2008 R2 machine. What I have done semi-successfully is force everybody to 32-bit operation, but that seems a little silly if 64 bit is supported as they claim it is.
Thanks in advance,
Dave
What the Oracle site mentions is that they have provided the ODAC components for both 32 and 64 bit, but have the Visual Studio design tools for only 32 bit.
Since you are not using EF, I am guessing you are interested in using ODP.NET components with LightSpeed.
For this scenario, you could go ahead by installing both 64 and 32 bit of ODP.NET on the development system and allowing the application to run in native mode on the deployment systems (the application will select the 64 or 32 bit ODP component based on the platform it is running on).
Check RealFiction blog and Semaphoremd blog for detail about installing the client tools for both 64 and 32 bit in parallel. Basically proper way to go about installing them in separate folders and creating symbolic links to the appropriate folder from %windir%\system32 and %windir%\SysWOW64. Thus allowing the WOW64 to take care of allocating the proper components based on the running application.
Can anyone tell me which version of turbo c will work on windows 7 and from where to download it free...
You can download it here. This is from the Embarcadero site; it does require registration before you can download it.
I do not know if you will be able to use this on Windows 7. I recently installed Borland Pascal 7 on a DOS 6.22 VM, just for kicks; the BP7 cannot be run on 64 bit Windows 7.
If you are targeting the windows platform have you considered looking at Visual C++ Express? It is free and quite functional.
Turbo C can not be used to target Windows 7. You may be able to run your Turbo C program in a compatibility mode but, unless there's a newer version I'm unaware of, you won't even be able to do that on Windows 7 64-bit.
Turbo C will work up to Vista. It will also work in 32 bit editions of Windows 7, in XP or 98 compatibility mode. It will not work on any 64-bit versions of Windows.
For 64 bit Windows I recommend DOSBox.
I don't recommend Turbo C. It's obsolete.
Reasons
Produces 16bit applications which dosen't work in modern OS.
The code is DOS specific.
Autocomplete not supported.
Dosen't support modern C++ syntax.
The project is discontinued.
I recommend Visual Studio. It's good for programming.
That said, Turbo C is still downloadable.
We're looking at upgrading from Visual Studio 2005 to Visual Studio 2008. I discovered the following disturbing comment.
From Update WINVER and _WIN32_WINNT:
Beginning with Visual C++ 2008, Visual C++ does not support targeting Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, or Windows NT.
Does this mean that if we rebuild our products with Microsoft Visual C++ 2008, they will stop working on Windows 98 machines? It sounds like it, but I have trouble believing they'd make that big a change.
It's not just about .NET 3.5. It's about the Windows SDK header file macros and definitions pulled in by the mandatory version bump in WINVER. So yes, Colen, Visual C++ 2008 binaries will target the Windows NT APIs only and while occasionally they may work on Windows 98, you should assume that you cannot use Visual Studio 2008 to target Win9x. You will have to use Visual Studio 2005 or older.
Yes, it does mean that: The Windows CreateProcess and LoadLibrary APIs on Windows NT before Windows 2000 and all of Windows (95, 98, and ME) will not load a DLL or EXE file made by Visual Studio 2008 (VS 9), because the PE header in the file has the required OS version field set to 5.
The error message upon attempting to load a Visual Studio 2008-generated EXE file will (be a very unfriendly modal error dialog) actually say "You need to upgrade your operating system to run this program".
I experimented with editing the field to 4. The binary will be loaded, but any use of the Visual Studio 2008 C-runtime will hang or crash the process. There are ways to get Visual Studio 2008 projects to not use their native C-runtimes, but if massive use of C++ features is important to you, this approach is not going to scale past a small application.
Visual Studio 2005 (VS 8) has most of the features of Visual Studio 2008, but it still targets early OS versions which is why at my shop we are sticking with that for the moment.
It's natural that they do not support older versions of their operating system on their newer products. It would cost them more (not just monetary cost, but also making harder or impossible to provide some newer useful features) to make things work with the limitations (and often bugs) of older systems. This happens all the time, and with everyone; new versions of GCC drop support for older less popular architectures; new releases of glibc require a more recent minimum kernel version; and so on.
These operating systems have long been retired; from Microsoft's point of view, nobody should be using them anymore. If you still want to develop for them, you can use older tools of the same vintage.
The 3.5 Framework won't even install on Windows 2000 Server at this point. So I don't believe that they will on 95, 98, or NT either. Microsoft doesn't want the responsibility of supporting these retired operating systems anymore.
It is my understanding that with the most recent KernelEx all MSVC versions targeting XP could potentially work (results depending on how many "newest" functions/features you will then decide to use)
With respect to what the answer could have been in 2008 instead, there were quite a number of patched libraries even back then (check links on the Wayback Machine if they are broken).
While I agree with JesperE, Windows 98 is such a small percentage of users that it makes little sense to target them, unless of course you know a large percentage of your customers are in fact using Windows 98.
In any case, you can in fact target Windows 98 in Visual Studio 2008 (you can't develop on Windows 98). You must, however, target your projects at .NET 2.0 only, you cannot use any 3.0, or 3.5 features.
I'd recommend that you take this as an opportunity to stop supporting Windows 9x. This is a good reason as any to do so. And, at least if you're writing C/C++ code for the Win32 API, life is much easier if you can assume that the target OS is Windows 2000 or later.
According to .NET 3.5 information, Windows 98 is not supported by .NET 3.5, so I would imagine that is what they mean. You can still do .NET 2.0 and lower development, but if you use the 3.5 libraries, Windows 98 is not supported.
Can someone tell me why I don't have all of the dev studio windows available to me when I develop on a 64-bit platform? I upgraded my dev desktop box to server 2003 x64 to match our deployment platform. Since then (I'm using VS2005) I've noticed that several windows aren't available. I can't view Processes (which is the most annoying) so I don't know which processes I'm attached to. I can attach to a process fine, but it won't show me what is already running under the debugger. There are others, but that's the one that sticks out in my mind at the moment.
My question is where are these limitations of developing under 64 bit documented (assuming they are)? (Of course, I also get the "Edit/Continue" warning dialog all the time telling me that doesn't work in 64-bit)
Also, is VS2008 any better under 64 bit?
Follow-up: Apparently my question is a little bit vague. I'm developing a 64-bit app on a 64-bit development environment. "Recompile it in x86" doesn't solve my problems.
Follow-up #2: I'm giving it one more shot. I WANT TO DEBUG A 64 BIT PROGRAM ON A 64 BIT ENVIRONMENT AND I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE VISUAL STUDIO FEATURES SHOWING UP. HOW DO I GET THEM?
Follow-up #3: I just installed XP 64 (previously I was using Server 2003 64-bit) and those features all showed up again (Process window, etc). Apparently the server version of windows doesn't provide all of the dev features.
Can anyone tell me why?
"Edit/Continue" can work if you change the build setting to X86 :)
Here was the suggestion from StackOverflow about it.
I had some problem with NUNIT when debugging code. The solution was to use the special program in the \bin\ folder Nunit-x86.exe for old code built in x86 and use the Nunit.exe for x64 built.