Re: Connecting to the Internet

"mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nc_Pe.2498$9i4.967@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> That's what I don't get. Microsoft has been trying to
> define the Internet as a Windows function ever since
> Active Desktop. And Internet functions are most of
> what the average person uses. Yet there's little coverage
> on MSDN. Most VB API books don't mention it. Dan Appleman
> leaves it out of his book altogether and only mentions it
> in the additional CD help insofar as advertising a Winsock
> control that he's selling.

There is more than what you are aware of. If I am correct, then thre is no
need to complain in this manner. Perhaps I should ignore your complaints,
but I admit I have a tendency to respond in a similar manner when there are
complaints such as this.

If you were to simply say you can't find what you are looking for, I might
help you look. I admit that I sometimes are too quick to tell something to
search more, but I also know it is sometimes difficult to find things that
are easy to find. However note that I am reluctant to look, since I still am
not sure what you need to make a connection for. Perhaps the answer is not
dependent on what the requirement is for, but I would feel much better if I
had a little better understanding of the requirement.

> Awhile back I wanted to send a simple email without
> depending upon several MB worth of COM objects, and
> I ended up needing to write a Winsock class and research
> SMTP server codes. If not for vbip.com I would have
> been lost. (Yet it seemed to me that figuring out the socket
> APIs was a lot easier than learning Registry APIs.)

I think I remember that thread. There is probably an easier solution. As I
recall, the initial question did not state the requirement the way you do
here. Initially, I think the question simply asked how to send a message,
not how to send a message "without depending upon several MB worth of COM
objects". Regardlous of that, if the thread I remember is the one you are
talking about, then I did try to help, but you were conversing with others
and ignored me. I think though that there is a good chance I could have
helped.

You can use COM objects in VB that are likely to be installed and that can
be installed in all versions of Windows that you choose to support.
Exxamples of that are WMI and CAPICOM. Then you can create a setup that does
not include the COM objects and provide a mechanisnm for installing the COM
objects if needed. I think there is a version of CDO that is like that.

CDO is certainly another example of something that is difficult to get
details of. At least details of availability of CDO are frustratingly
difficult to find. I did find a page that provides the details of
availability very conveniently, yet that page now does not exist.

I think MAPI was discussed in your prior thread. It is difficult to find
details of it's availability but I have written a program (a C++ program)
that uses simple MAPI. I know I spent a lot of time researching how to send
email with software that is likely to exist in all Windows systems. If
simple MAPI can satisfy your requirements, then I could have helped you
develop a solution that is much easier than doing all that your chosen
solution does.

Also note that there are other newsgroups that have specialists that would
be very familiar with what is available. If there is a solution to your
email requirements that is easier than what you chose, then the specialists
in the other newsgroups would have the answers for you. It is likely they
would have answers in their FAQ.

> This time I've been trying to understand connection APIs
> and it seems like, again, virtually no one has done it, and
> Microsoft's API support for it seems to be an IE afterthought.
>
> So that made me think that either it may be very gritty
> coding or else I may be "missing the boat" in some
> regard.

I hope you don't mind me saying you have "missed the boat". I would not use
that terminology, except since you did, I assume you don't mind.

>> I might not answer the question, since if I explain how to make an
> omelette
>> and you want to make fried rice, you (or at least most people posting
> vague
>> questions) would reply by saying my answer is wrong. I probably would not
>> answer a question such as "how to use a frying pan" since it is too
>> vague.
>>
>
> :) Exactly my point. Your inherent contrariness
> reinterprets the question, even in my analogy.
> Someone asks a simple question:
>
> "How do I use a frying pan?"
>
> Despite good intentions you begin a fantasy
> argument with them. By the time the dust settles, your
> answer is, "Never try to cook an omelette like rice!".
> And you think that you've answered the question.

It is very common for people to ask for clarification, or to say that a
question is not clear. There is a FAQ somewhere in which one of the first
answers make it clear that questions need to be stated clearly.

If I ask for clarification of a question, then it's not my fault if someone
chooses to argue with me. Rarely doe that happen, but it probably has. If
someone asked:

"How do I use a frying pan?"

Then I would ask for clarification. If someone chooses to argue, then they
are not likely to get help. Most other people would also choose to ignore
them. Vague questions such as that are often ignored in Microsoft newsgroups
without requests for clarification.

There are a few people in this newsgroup that post comments that are
innapropriately personal. They cause me to respond to their foolishness, and
people such as you get the impression that I caused the problem. I am very
surprised that people allow them to behave in the unproductive manner they
do.

For example, in the conversation of QueryPerformanceCounter, a couple of
people said it is not useful for the asked in the thread, and posted several
messages saying it is not useful. None of the messages they posted saying it
is not useful have any significant explanation of the reason it is not
useful. Yet someone posted a comment indicating the person that posted the
original question is not likely to consider QueryPerformanceCounter, since
there was so much posted about it. It's like a politician making a lot of
comments saying that their competitor is a bad person and then everyone
believes it without having any substantial evidence.

So yes, I have written relativley lengthy comments here. I really think
there is a really good chance that if you had written your original question
without some of the dumping on Microsoft and with a bit of an explanation of
what you mean by "connection", you likely would have an answer by now. As it
is, there are other things I must do at the moment.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Activating Windows XP Home
    ... Don't let them talk you into giving *any* other information besides that and don't let them coherce you into registering or validating Windows. ... I formatted my computer a couple of days ago and installed a fresh copy of XP Home and after installation, an automated message appeared on my computer saying something like, my hardware had changed and that I needed to verify and activate my copy of XP. ... I got a message say something like, according to Microsoft, you have exceeded the number of times that you can activate with the key and that I would need to call Microsoft. ... It is the opinion of many people that it is by design and intended to coherce unsuspecting/uninformed customers into buying another license and there are recent reports here of even the MS activation reps trying to get legitimate users to buy another license needlessly. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Activating Windows XP Home
    ... I have a query with reference to how many times we can activate our copy of XP before we need to call Microsoft. ... I formatted my computer a couple of days ago and installed a fresh copy of XP Home and after installation, an automated message appeared on my computer saying something like, my hardware had changed and that I needed to verify and activate my copy of XP. ... I fully realise that making major hardware changes would probably need me to reactivate XP so I clicked on the link in the system tray and activated Windows online, ... coherce unsuspecting/uninformed customers into buying another license and there are recent reports here of even the MS activation reps trying to get legitimate users to buy another license needlessly. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Penetration of ASP.NET - Developers continue to use VB6 & ASP
    ... i thought the article was saying that the Windows API was dead and you're a good example of why. ... he's saying that Microsoft lost the app war with the web. ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general)
  • Re: Penetration of ASP.NET - Developers continue to use VB6 & ASP
    ... i thought the article was saying that the Windows API was dead and you're a good example of why. ... he's saying that Microsoft lost the app war with the web. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
    ... they don't release all of the OS APIs - except to thier ... internal applications developers and "select" Microsoft Partners. ... I really don't see the problem with giving developers the ENTIRE API to work ... Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK) ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)