furious developer -- can't compile hello world using SDK on windows x64...

"Check out http://www.route64.com/ for some of the work we have been doing with partners to bring developers 64-bit goodness on Windows."

I think you meant www.route64.net. Let's see, according to the site, a person interested would have to pay $299. So, if I want to be able to develop 64-bit software on x64 windows, I would pay close to $300 (don't know if this covers the transportation and airfair fees -- gas prices aren't cheap nowadays).

So, MS intentionally makes the 64-bit SDK difficult (if not impossible) to be configured on an x64 windows. That way, they can make $300. Why allow your developer to try out the free SDK (then turn around and praise at how easy it is to develop for windows x64). No, no. That would be too easy for MS to comprehend. We must make it near-impossible so only the selected few elite can develop for 64-bit windows.

I feel sorry for AMD for jump starting the 64-bit revolution. When you have company like MS, who just throws pie at the face of your potential developers (who will only benefit MS by producing 64-bit apps and software).

MS's exit strategy for win32 doesn't look all that great (reminds me of some other exit strategy discussed in the news).

Seamless transition to 64-bit? Well, if it's this difficult to build a 64-bit version of something as simple as a "hello world" program, one starts to really wonder what MS do all day. The quality of software seems to have dipped since the initial introduction of Windows XP (google save us! please release google's "Windows x64 SDK" or google's "visual studio 2005 x64 edition").

Enough is enough -- stop putting c r a p (take that d u m b censor script) out.

fums64 at 2007-9-9 >

Frank Boyne wrote:

fums64 wrote: This quote from here (http://devforums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=294&st=0&p=781&#entry781) summaries my frustration: It looks like the poster got real close to a successful build with the VC 6 approach (message posted August 21st at 1:44 PM). Sure they got a lot of linker errors but they mostly boiled down to "unresolved external symbol __security_cookie" which can be fixed by linking to the appropriate bufferoverflow*.lib described in this KB article. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=894573

Even if you could past that, you wouldn't be able to debug from within .NET 2003. So, what's the point?

When you move beyond simple hello world programs to things like ATL and MFC you'll need the 7.1 Libraries SDK as well as the PSDK if you are going to build programs using ATL 7.1 or MFC 7.1 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;875446

Not possible since a simple hello world does not work.

Have you considered just using Visual Studio 2005 to build your code? It will run in 32-bit and 64-bit environments. You can compile in the 64-it environment and you can also cross-compile for IA-64 and x64 in the 32-it enviroment - best of both worlds. Plus, 64 bit support is finally built into the IDE so you don't need to mess about with special build environments and /useenv etc. You just pick your target and build.

I just tried installing VS 2005 BETA 2. Let me tell everyone now so people won't waste their time, it does not/will not install. Let me repeat for all the hard heads out there, it does not install on windows xp x64 -- but it does on windows xp 32-bit. Now how f kin messed up is that? A compiler that supposed to support x64 does not install on the platform that it's suppose to generate code for? Something that developers of the x64 platform uses to write x64 code? Knock, knock, wakie, wakie test department at microsoft...pull your head out of your a rse.

Why would you add a layer of inconvience for the developer when they have to build on win32 (again, because vs .net B2 does not install on the native platform), then switch over to win x64 to try out your program (assuming you took to the time to setup a dual boot system -- paid MS twice the amount of money for two OSes; which BTW takes up several hours if you're lucky to setup the way that it's usable). Where is the logic in that? We're developers, not bimbo blondes (female or male). That's just plain dumb.

So I figure I give MS a break. Maybe VS 2005 B2 needs .net framework B2 x64 installed before it wants to install. So, I expendiate 20 min (download time) plus 5 minutes running through setup then finding out it does not install because of XML Parser c r a p, component this and that, cannot run x.exe, the list goes on and on. Wow, look at the time. If I own a small company, I would go belly up in bankrupcy because of the c r a p that comes out of redmond.

If this is any indication, perhaps you guys should put in some extra hours (no, make that days or weeks) to push out another t u r d beta.

See, now I've just wasted my time venting my frustration on this forum. All the while, I could have produced some code and be productive. Oh, wait, I can't do because vs 2005 b2 does not install. Hmmmm...is it time to scrap the x64 platform already?

fums64 at 2007-9-9 >

Kang Su Gatlin wrote:

Hi Fums, VS2005 Beta2 should install just fine.  I've installed personally on probably a dozen x64 machines. 

With that said there could be some problems on your particular machine which is causing a problem and we'd be happy to work with you to figure out what the issue is.

<br /><br />Admittedly, it is&nbsp;a beta so there are bound to be some issues, but install on x64 did work.&nbsp; I should note that we have released several CTPs since then with ever increasing support for the x64 platform.&nbsp;

I'm expect that when we release VS2005 you'll find the development experience on x64 quite to your liking.&nbsp; <br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Kang Su Gatlin<br />Visual C++ Program Manager

fums64 at 2007-9-9 >