Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: "David Ching" <dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:37:57 -0700
"Tom Serface" <tom.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ebx6JG97HHA.3940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Mihai,
For the most part I agree with what you say here, the only exception
being... if you are using a lot of strings and doing a lot of string
handling and don't need anything except English then using MBCS may be a
bit faster to execute, better in memory storage, and quicker to read and
write files since Unicode doubles all character sizes whether needed or
not. I wish Windows/MFC/all those good things had better handling for
other methods like UTF-8 that would give similar results as MBCS.
That say, the differences in most cases are not all that significant and
I've gone to using Unicode all the time.
But much of the inherent speed advantage of MBCS is negated by the native
API in Win2K/XP/Vista being Unicode, so having a Unicode app allows us to
call these API's directly and not go through thunks. But I've not done
speed tests.
-- David
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: Tom Serface
- Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- References:
- Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: Marco Hung
- Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: Mihai N.
- Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: Tom Serface
- Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Prev by Date: Re: Upgrading unbuffered stream calls from <fstream.h> to <fstream
- Next by Date: Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Previous by thread: Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Next by thread: Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|