<1dhh15g5mihte.adjyx7whjjh1$.dlg@40tude.net> <3e2b341e$1@tnews.web.devx.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:26:35 +1100
Message-ID: <1o97lw2ssejqo$.1jmxuifij2nhd$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.3.1 (bba1155f.25.503)
NNTP-Posting-Host: c16664.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au
X-Trace: 19 Jan 2003 17:13:28 -0800, c16664.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au
Lines: 29
Path: tnews.web.devx.com
Xref: dnews vb.dotnet.discussion:48836

On 19 Jan 2003 15:26:22 -0800, Kent wrote:

> You make things seem as rosey as MM makes them seem bleak. As I recall early
> OCX controls sucked bigtime! Also, you weren't forced into them right away,
> because the 16 bit version of VB still supported VBX files. I also remember
> the OLE runtime files being broken by new versions of office that came along.


There were problems with the first controls that companies released, as
there are with any v1.0 software, but the point is that architecture of OCX
controls was so much better than that of VBX and provided far more
stability than we were used to. With the new versions of controls came
loads of new features, so most people were very happy (except Mike of
course )

> And for those of us who actually built the controls it was even worse. That
> is until 1996 when the spec was "simplified"
>
> You shouldn't judge people so quickly, you've made a few statements of your
> own that are questionable.


Judge people quickly? I've had years of Mike's messages to judge him by
Of course I've made questionable statements, every comment is questionable,
and I'm happy for people to point out where I might have missed or
misunderstood something. There are often viewpoints that are not considered
by a poster, which is why it's important to keep an open mind and impartial
attitude.

Cheers,
Jason