Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: "Tom Serface" <tom.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:02:33 -0700
That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of that before. So I guess if you are moving strings in and out of controls a lot there could even be a performance improvement using Unicode.
Tom
"David Ching" <dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8dGDi.1727$Sd4.669@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Tom Serface" <tom.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ebx6JG97HHA.3940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHi 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: Giovanni Dicanio
- 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
- Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- From: David Ching
- Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Prev by Date: Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Next by Date: Re: INCREDIBLE MessageBox
- Previous by thread: Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Next by thread: Re: Code Page problem in SetWindowText
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|