Hi,

We are looking into the option of migrating an application from Borland C++ 3.01 to 5.01. In this regard I have following questions
1. Is BC++5.01 Windows 2000 and XP compatible?
2. Is BC++3.01 upward compatible with BC++5.01? Can the code from the existing application be reused on BC++5.01 environment?
3. If BC++ 5.01 is not a good option then, can VC++ be used?

Thanks
Sandeep

Borland C++ 3.1 only made 16 bit applications and Windows has been 32 bit
for at least 6 years.  Get C++ Builder.

.  Ed

Thanks Ed!! The information provided by you helps me. I have few more questions related to this.

We want to make our application a 32 bit application compatible with Windows 2K and XP. We want to resuse the existing code as much as possible.

Is C++ Builder 5.0 ompatible with Windows XP and 2000?

The existing application uses OWL. Can the existing code (business logic and UI) be mostly reused in C++ Builder 5.0? Are you aware of any issues in porting BC++ 3.1 code to C++ Builder?

Thanks
Sandeep

"Ed Mulroy \(TeamB\)" <e...@mulroy.org> wrote:

OWL as it existed under BC++ 3.1 is not compatible with anything later.  OWL
underwent a major revision after 3.1 because of both changes in the C++
language spec and changes in the Windows API.  While there was a conversion
program to convert to OWL 2.0, it only handled the big lumps, leaving too
many details untouched.  You are better off to do a rewrite than to try to
convert.  If I had to do such a conversion I'd probably use C++ Builder and
the VCL (Visual Control Library) that comes with Builder.

C++ Builder 5 is the current version.  Windows XP is what, 2 weeks old?
There is nothing in C++ Builder 5 which specificly addresses anything
specific to Windows XP.  People are running C++ Builder 5 under XP and
Windows 2K and developing code with it.  Other than a few who are having
great compatiblity problems with everything in sight, Builder included,
because they upgraded instead of installed XP and somehow didn't get it
right, I haven't heard anything against Builder under XP.  (Side note: MS
tech support advised me to NEVER do the upgrade for XP, always do the
install.)

.  Ed

I agree about OWL 1.0 - its simpler to rewrite the user interface than
to port to OWL 2.x.

Cheers
Lynn