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.
Related
I have been following the usage of JavaScript for the past few years, and with the release of extremely fast scripting engines (V8, SquirrelFish Extrene, TraceMonkey, etc.) the possibilities of JavaScript have increased dramatically. However, the usage share of Internet Explorer coupled with it's total lack of support for recent standards makes me want to drop a bomb on Microsoft's HQ, as it creates a huge amount of problems for any website.
The game will need to be pretty dynamic client-side, with animations and other eye-candy things, but not a full-blown game like those that run directly in the OS using DirectX or OpenGL. However, this might be a little stretch for JavaScript and will certainly feel extremely slow in Internet Explorer (given that the current IE engine can be hundreds of times slower than SFX; gotta see what IE9 will bring), would it be better to just do the whole thing in Flash? I know this means requiring the plug-in AND I have no experience whatsoever with Flash (other than browsing YouTube :P). It also means I can't just output directly from PHP, I would have to use XML or some other format to pass data to it (JSON is directly integrated in JS and PHP can deal with it easily).
Another idea would be to provide an alternative interface just for IE, though I don't know how (ActiveX maybe? or with Flash, then why not just provide it to all browsers) or totally not supporting it and requiring the use of other browsers, although this is plain stupid from a business perspective.
So here am I, wondering what approach to take and thus asking for your advice. How should I build the client-side? AJAX in all browsers, Flash in all browsers or a mix (AJAX for "modern" browsers and something else for the "grandpa": IE).
I recommend a plug-in platform (Flash, Silverlight, or Java) over AJAX. Having a clean layer of abstraction between your game and the client's browser is a big advantage. In any non-trivial AJAX game look forward to endless corner-cases where browsers differ in performance or implementation.
Personally, I think Flash is easy to learn if you are coming from AJAX experience. Flash is currently the most widely installed and proven plug-in for browser games. However, Silverlight and Java are both building momentum. Also, the Unity engine has become a popular choice for commercial browser games.
I think you shouldn't leave Java out of the equation. It's a powerful, fast language, and with Java applets, you can do almost anything. If you want hardware-accelerated graphics via OpenGL, JOGL can do it, even in an applet.
On the other hand, it might not be right for you. But at this early stage, I think you should evaluate all of your options, and since you have no experience with Flash but sound like you've got a bit of programming experience, you might feel more at-home with Java.
I believe the current answer is Flash game.
Alternatives:
Java Applet: getting less and less common those days and it is not commonly installed as a plugin on many computers.
SilverLight: too new and might vary and change in time. not commonly installed on many computers and it's Microsoft (whom tends to change technology every 2 years ...)
JavaScript / AJAX: Still a new kid on the block, it's on the rise it is true with many nice features, but still lack of good cross browser for IE even IE8, can not play sounds internally, still slower than the others, and you don't know where will it evolves.
Eventually probably the best solution for now is Flash development:
Cross platform. Works fast. Long time already alive and have a lot of support.
I hope this answer will change in the next year. Happy Peasach.
Check out Jmonkey. The "plugin" loads if you have Java on your machine. Once it's cached, the next time the visitor goes to the page, it your game loads very quick. Check out their website for demos and see what I mean: http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/
Oh, I forgot to say, it's a 3D scenegraph Java engine. I just tried it again, and it loaded in linux. Looks they've put in some good work.
Don't do it with javascript in the browser. And Flash really can be a pain just because it's closed source and you don't know if you've made a mistake or found a bug - speaking from experience. I'd never want to make another Flash game again.
How about using RaphaelJs , it is a Javascript library that make dinamyc images using SVG, and for IE, it try to make those images using the IE alternative: VML. Im using it on my own WebGame, but i dont really make complex graphics in it. The most complex thing done on RapahelJs was a heath map (20 * 20 tiles ) with a dinamyc opacity slider. An it work with jquery without any problem or configuration!
There are many more technologies and tools available to build the front end for an application.
Which is the best technology/tool/platform available using which I can build a better GUI, by which I'll be able to build a nice looking as well as an efficient GUI?
Definition of "better" includes factors such as efficiency,user friendliness,better content control mechanism, navigation and many more.
I know this is a question about which GUI toolkit you should use, but your first technology for producing a user-friendly UI is pen and paper. Sketch out some mock-ups. Draw buttons and menus on construction paper, cut them out, and glue them together. Then try your mockups on about a half-dozen people. You'll quickly find out what makes a good UI.
It doesn't matter how good the UI looks or whether it uses the latest snazzy effects -- if your users can't figure out how to use it, they'll go elsewhere. You need to learn what works for your target audience before you write a single line of code.
Read Don't Make Me Think to learn how to make mock-ups and do user testing.
If' you're tracking an IP address, you'll definitely want to create your GUI Interface in Visual Basic.
Use the .NET framework in Visual Studio 2005/2008/2010 Studio. I haven't developed in any other environment, but I have been able to create nice looking apps in this IDE / Framework.
"Best" depends on what your evaluation function is.
For ease of development, and high quality UI, in a non-web based app it's hard to beat C#/VB or any other .NET language and environment for a windows-based app. Depending on the quality of the UI, MPF will give you greater flexibility and control, whereas windows form will make it easier to develop.
Having used Windows Presentation Foundation for a while now i would highly recommend it. There is a pretty big learning curve and, to be honest, MSFT should have included some controls (the datagrid being the biggest one) that were not included by default (but will be in .NET 4.0). Where WPF and XAML exceed is providing a foundation from which you can build just about anything. You can style ANY part of ANY control and build your own composite controls from scratch. A lot of thought went into binding and value converters and once you get used to the declarative nature of XAML you wont want to turn back. The company I work for has been using it for a couple of years now and the difference between the GUIs we used to develop (mainly winforms and asp.net) and what we develop now are night and day in terms of both look-and-feel and functionality. My two cents anyway...
It depends.
What device will the GUI be used on, hand held, PC, Mac?
What platform Windows, Linux, Web?
What kind of application will it be, accounting, email client, web application?
What audience will be using the application (a GUI aimed at a child may be different than one aimed at an adult)?
All of these things must be taken into account before even starting to formulate an answer to your question.
You have several choices for developing a GUI.
first, if cross platform is an issue consider using Java or Python.
you can also use Adobe AIR and develop the gui in Flex.
If you direct the product to windows only users .NET WPF is the best solution, with a very rich set of control and examples.
You can also use .NET with mono for cross platform compatibility, but WPF isn't currently supported.
Desktop, Mobile, Windows, Linux, Database, OpenGL: Nokia Qt. Wiht Python - PyQt development process is shortest and easy. Application containing all required python & qt libraries and modules is around 30MB with Inno Setup installation is 8MB and will work on Windows 2000 and newer for Python 2.6.x, Python 2.5.x based application will run from Windows 95 to Windows 7.
I think all the attributes you list -- efficiency, user friendliness, etc -- are attributes of a good design rather than a good toolkit. Just about any toolkit can be used to meet those goals. I think the question might be different if you were asking about eye candy, fancy multi-media, etc. There are definitely some toolkits that do that better than others.
If you're interested in usability first (and it sounds like you are), focus on the design then pick whatever toolkit meets your current abilities and can handle your design. For example, if you require 3D images that might narrow your choices; likewise if you need to show videos, that will influence which toolkits you can choose from.
So, start with a good design. From that, create a list of requires for the toolkit -- rich editing controls, video, 3D, etc. And then look for a toolkit that provides what you need.
The best toolkit in the world won't make up for poor design.
Personally after having used Win32, Forms and WPF then going to Mac/iPhone GUI development, I very much prefer the flexibility and high quality of visuals in the Mac/iPhone GUI.
One of the most useful examples is the fact that in NSTable/UITable controls (ListViews or similar in Windows), every cell is a fully customisable View (a Control in Windows).
Where in a ListView you have very little customisation for each cell/item in the view since you only provide details, not an actual control, an NSTable/UITable asks you for a table cell which you can add anything to, such as buttons, switches and image views.
Mac OS GUI development to me is a LOT more flexible and more consistently flexible in that regard. Everything is a View so I can my own contents to anything.
Have you considered Silverlight?
It can be used to create internet applications, but it can also be run out of browser to create desktop applications. It's has significant overlap with WPF though there are differences which might catch you out when swapping from one to the other.
Expression Blend 3 is a very good visual designer and the code it produces is quite efficient.
Is it worth to try to keep your GUI within the system looks ?
Every major program have their own anyways...
(visual studio, iexplorer, firefox, symantec utilities, adobe ...)
Or just the frame and dialogs should be left in the system look 'n feel range ?
update:
One easy exemple, if you want to add a close button to your tab, usually you make it against your current desktop theme. But if the user has a different theme, your close button is out of place, it doesn't fit the system look anymore.
I played with the uxtheme api, but there is nothing much you can do, and some themes i've seen are incomplete sets.
So to address this issue, the best way i see, is to do like visual studio/firefox/chrome roolup your own tab control with your theme...
I think, that unless your program becomes a very major part of the users life, you should strive to minimize "surprises" and maximimze recognizability (is that even a word?).
So, if you are making something that is used by 1.000 people for 10 minutes a day, go with system looks, and mechanisms.
If, on the other hand, you are making something that 100 people are using for 6 hours a day, I would start exploring what UI improvements and shortcuts I could cram in to make those 6 hours easier to deal with.
Notice however, that UI fixes must not come at the expense of performance. This is almost always the case in the beginning when someone thinks that simply overriding the OnPaint event in .Net will be sufficient.
Before you know it you are once again intercepting NC_PAINT and NC_BACKGROUNDERASE and all those little tricks to make it go as fast as the built-in controls.
I tend to agree with others here- especially Soraz and Smaci.
One thing I'll add, though. If you do feel that the OS L&F is too constraining, and you have good grounds for going beyond it, I'd strive to follow the priciple of "Pacing and leading" (which I'm borrowing here from an NLP context).
The idea is that you still want to capitalise as much as possible on your intended audidences familiarity with the host OS (there will be rare exceptions to this, as Smaci has already covered). So you use as much as possible of the "standard" controls and behaviours (this is the "pacing") - but extend it where necessary in ways that still "fit in" as much as possible (leading).
You've already mentioned some good examples of this principle at work - Visual Studio, even Office to some extend (Office is "special" as new UI styles that cut their teeth here often find their way back into future OS versions - or de-facto standards).
I'm bringing this up to contrast the type of apps that just "do it their way" - usually because they've been ported from another platform, or have been written to be cross-platform in GUI as well as core. Java apps often fall into this category, but they're not the only ones. It's not as bad as it used to be, but even today most pro audio apps have mongrel UIs, showing their lineage as they have been ported from one platform to another through the years. While there might be good business reasons for these examples, it remains that their UIs tend to suck and going this route should be avoided if in any way possible!
The overriding principle is still to follow the path of least surprise, and take account of your user's familiarity with the OS, and ratio of their time using your app to others on the OS.
Yes, if only because it enables the OS to use any accessability features that are built in like text-to-speech. There is nothing more annoying for someone who needs accessability features to have yet another UI that breaks all the tools they are used to.
I'd say it depends on the users, the application and the platform. The interface should be intuitive to the users, which is only the same as following system UI standards if they are appropriate for those users. For example, in the past I have been involved in developing hand held systems for dairy and bread delivery on Windows CE hand helds. The users in this case typically were not computer literate, and had a weak educational backround. The user interface focussed on ease of use through simple language and was modelled on a pre-existing paper form system. It made no attempt to follow the Windows look and feel as this would not have been appropriate.
Currently, I develop very graphical software for a user group that is typically 3rd level educated and very computer literate. The expectation here is that the software will adhere to and extend the Windows look and feel.
Software should be easy and intuitive where possible, and how to achieve this is entirely context dependent.
I'd like to reply with another question (Not really Stackoverflow protocol, but I think that, in this case, it's justified)
The question is 'Is it worth breaking the OS look and feel?'
In other words,
Do you have justification for doing so? (In order to present data in some way that's not possible within normal L&F)
What do you gain from doing so? (Improvinging usability?)
What do you lose from doing so? (Intuitiveness & familiarity?)
Don't simply do it 'To be different'
It depends on how wide you would define system look'n feel... But in general, you should keep it.
Do not surprise the user with differentiating from what he is used to. That's one of the reasons why we call him user ;-)
Firefox and Adobe products usually don't because they are targeting several plattforms which all have their own L&F. But Visual Studio keeps the typical Windows L&F. And, as long as you are developing only for Windows, so should you.
Apart from the fact that there is no well-defined look-n-feel on Windows, you should always try to follow the host platform native L&F. Note however that look-n-feel is just as much about how a program behaves as how it looks. Programs which behave in a counter-intuitive way is just as annoying as programs sporting their own ugly widgets.
Fraps is a good example (IMHO) of a program which is actually very useful, but breaks several user interface guidelines and looks really ugly.
If you're developing for Apple's Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows, the vendors supply interface guidelines which should be followed for any application to be "native".
See Are there any standards to follow in determining where to place menu items? for more information.
If you are on (or develop for) a Mac, then definitely YES!
And this should be true for Windows also.
In general, yes. But there's the occassional program that does well despite being not formatted for all the OSes it runs on. For example, emacs runs pretty much contrary to every interface guideline on OS X or Windows (and probably even gnome/KDE) and it's not going away any time soon.
I strongly recommend making your application look native.
A common mistake that developers who are porting an application to a new platform seem to make is that the new application should look-and-feel like it does on the old platform.
No, the new application should look-and-feel like all the other application that the user is used to on the new platform.
Otherwise, you get abominations like iTunes on Windows. The same UI design may be exactly right on one platform and very wrong on the next.
You will find that your users may not be able to pin-point why they dislike your application, but they just feel it hard to use.
Yes, there are valid exceptions, but they are rare (and sure enough, they tend to be the major applications like Office and Firefox, rather than the little ones). If you are unsure enough to have to ask on StackOverflow, your application isn't one of them.
The Free MS Windows replacement operating system ReactOS has just released a new version. They have a large and active development team.
Have you tried your software with it yet?
if so what is your recommendation?
Is it time to start investigating it as a serious Windows replacement?
Targeting ReactOS specifically is a bit too narrow IMO -- perhaps a better focus is to target compatibility with WINE. Because ReactOS shares so many of its usermode DLLs with WINE, targeting WINE should result in the app running just fine on ReactOS.
Of course, there will always be things that WINE can't emulate well (hence the need for ReactOS). In this way, it seems that if something runs in WINE, it will run in ReactOS, whereas the fact that something runs in ReactOS doesn't mean that it will necessarily run in WINE.
Targeting WINE is well documented, perhaps easier to test, and by definition, should make your app compatible with ReactOS as a matter of course. In this way, you're not only gathering the rather large user base of current WINE users, but you're future-proofing yourself for whenever anyone wants to use your app with ReactOS.
In their homepage, at the Tour you can see a partial list of office, tools and games that already run OK (or more or less) at ReactOS. If you subscribe to the newsletter, you'll receive info about much more - for instance, I was quite surprised when I read most SQL Server 2000 tools actually work on ReactOS!! Query Analyzer, OSQL and Books Online work fine, Enterprise Manager and Profiler are buggy and the DBMS won't work at all.
At a former workplace (an all MS shop) we investigated seriously into it as a way to reduce our expenditure in licenses whilst keeping our in-house developed apps. Since it couldn't run MSDE fine, we had to abandon the project - hope in the future this will be solved and my ex-coworkers can push it again.
These announcements might as well be also on their homepage - I couldn't find them after 5 mins. of searching, though. Probably the easiest way to know all these compatibility issues is to join the newsletter, or look for its archives.
I have been tracking this OS' progress for quite some time. I believe it has all the potential to really bring an OSS operating system to the masses for it breaks the "chicken and egg" problem: it has applications and drivers from the very beginning (since it aims to have full ABI compatibility with MS Windows).
Just wait for their first beta, I won't be surprised if they surpass Linux in popularity really soon after that...
Post Edit: Found it! Look at section Support Database, it's the web place to go look for whether a particular piece of hardware of some program works on ReactOS.
ReactOS has been under development for a long long time.
They were in some hot water earlier because some of their code appeared to be line by line dissasembly of some NT kernel code, I think they have replaced all of it.
I wouldn't bother with cross platform testing until they hit the same market penetration as Linux, which I would wager is never.
Until ReactOS doesn't randomly crash just sitting there within 5 minutes of booting, I won't worry about testing my code on it. Don't get me wrong, I like ReactOS, but it's just not stable enough for any meaningful testing yet!
No, I do not think it is time to start thinking of it as a Windows replacement.
As the site states, it's still in the Alpha stages. More importantly, whos Windows replacement? Yours? Your users? The former is one thing, the latter is categorically a no-go.
As an aside, I'm not really sure who this OS is targetting. It has to be people who rely on Windows software but don't want to pay, because people who simply don't want Windows can use MacOS / Linux, and the support (community or otherwise) for these choices is good.
Moreover, if you use Linux you already have some amounts of Windows software support via Wine.
Back to people who rely on Windows software but don't want to pay. If they are home users they can just simply pirate it, if they are large business users they already have support contracts and trained people etc. It's hard enough for large businesses to be OK to update to new versions of Windows, let alone an open source replacement.
So I suppose that leaves small businesses who don't want to obtain illegal copies of MS software, can't afford the OS licences and rely on software that only runs on Windows and has bad of non-existent Wine compatibility.
It is a useful replacement for Windows when it runs 'your' software without crashing. At the moment it is not a general purpose os as it is too unstable (being only alpha) but people have used ReactOS successfully in anger for specific tasks already. As a windows replacement it has multiple potential uses, sandbox systems, test and development systems, multiple virtual instances, embedded devices, even packaging/bundling legacy apps with their own compatible o/s. Driver and application compatibility, freed from Microsoft's policy of planned obsolescence and regular GUI renewal, what's not to like?
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.