|
all much of a muchness, all offer same thing but trying to be 5c cheaper than the other guy (and the extra discount if scroll down to end of the page.)
I found the most important thing to check was the price after the first 1/2/3 years -
most of the cheap ones can rise a few hundred percent and it's only say 2 years years later when the renewal invoice comes that you realise it's time to move again and again and again.
I gave up trying to save that extra dollar per month or get the extra 5 GB of storage etc, rather chose on:
1. been around a good number of years,
2. has a good enough rep (user comments - those "top 10" lists are ALL sponsored crap),
3. has a price that will stay pretty much the same 2-3 years later.
of course when checking user reviews there are fake / paid reviews: negative about the competition and good ones about themselves - not all are fake but most of those light on detail...
check the 2, 3 and 4 star comments, if there's many more 4's than 2's and the 3 stars mostly complain about something that won't ever affect you then usually it'll usually be OK.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
And godaddy says SSL is free for 1st year. & From next year, the cost of an SSL certificate is equal to the cost of the plan.  
|
|
|
|
|
I feel FastComet is more straight forward with features & pricing, without any traps here and there.
Godaddy is the worst kind. They keep trapping money in every possible way.
|
|
|
|
|
Never used it personally, but IIRC a few of the web comics I read are on Dream Host; since most of them are very shoestring low budget operations that will go with whatever is the cheapest hosting that gives them decent performance (generally by working their way up the cost ladder from cheaper "unlimited" plans that use a shared server so overloaded that if you have more than 5 page requests/hour you get throttled for high use) I assume their entry levelish plans are decent quality for the money.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
So I have to write a new extension for VS, which means I have to deal with WPF... DataGrid in this case...
Why's that WPF, that came to life to replace the ugly WinForms, is so ugly?
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean ... it's like they had a good idea but it never really got finished. With a good intelligent design UI it could have been so good. As it is it's too clumsy and just feels unfinished to develop in. Pity.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: just feels unfinished to develop in
You'll have similar feelings about UWP. Not a surprise since developing in WPF and UWP is so similar.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. The framework incorporates some really great ideas and then falls flat in the implementation.
My biggest complaint (vs WinForm) is that the design UI completely sucks by comparison. In VS, with WinForm, everything is drag-and-drop / point-and-click. With WPF, I need to constantly resort to editing the XML. There is no reason it needs to be this way. They really need to either get a better UI team or give the team they already have time to fix it.
The other problem is the (effective) lack of immediate-mode graphics. I understand that for line-of-business apps this makes perfect sense. However, they should support a fall-back for graphic intensive applications. Try drawing and re-drawing a few thousand lines. Performance is fine in WinForm, but its frustratingly slow in WPF...even when you take advantage of all the WPF performance tweaks.
To solve this performance issue, we're left playing with 3rd party work-arounds...using writeable bitmaps. They work great. This means there is absolutely no reason, other than arrogance, that MS can't incorporate some of these concepts into WPF...in a better supported/more seamless fashion.
Also, provide better support for WinForm-style docking. Yes, I understand the other layouts are far more flexible and worth learning. I took the time. I still find them less intuitive. So, why punish WinForm developers making the transition? Keep the cool new layouts and add better support for docking layouts as well.
As it stands now, for me, WPF is an interesting toy for occasional play. I use it when I want some really flexible layouts...in line-of-business apps. Or, when a customer requests it. Or, when I play with UWP. Otherwise, I still use WinForm.
Its a real shame. I'd prefer to move full time to WPF, to ease the wear-and-tear switching back and forth causes on my poor brain. Come on MS...finish what you started!
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Lynch wrote: I need to constantly resort to editing the XML
XAML - I was full time in WPF and have never used drag and drop to get controls on a view  I had forgotten how easy winforms UI layout is. Thankfully I have never been into graphics, purely LOB work and I still run up against performance issues.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I've never used the UI designer, and do everything in XAML. Even Blend still scares the hell out of me to this day, and I'm a proficient WPF/XAML developer.
Writing XAML is no different to a web developer writing HTML - nobody uses drag'n'drop interfaces on that platform. Admittedly it's easier to see your changes by just pressing F5 in the open browser window, rather than have to run the app...
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't done anything in WPF for a while so I'm not sure if it works the same there, but while starting my 1st UWP app a few months ago I discovered that I could live edit the xaml while the app was running and have UI changes show up immediately in the app. On the plus side, no need for that pesky Alt-F-S, Alt-Tab, F5 to see changes; on the minus at times VS would interrupt the live editing to complain that a half typed bit of markup was generating a parse error.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently working on a graphics intensive application as well. Redrawing using WPF took about 7 seconds. We're currently using a SharpDX based renderer instead and when we need to update ALL the primitives and redraw it takes about 25ms.
WPF is based on Dx9(and needs to be updated to 12 tbh) so it shouldn't need to be this freaking slow!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, there is no reason it should be soooo painfully slow. Its significantly worse than any other presentation framework I've used. The excuse that its retained-mode vs immediate-mode doesn't really cut it.
It does not seem to be a DX issue. I've written code directly accessing older versions of DX...without similar performance problems. Somebody at MS needs to meter the WPF code and find its major malfunction.
Instead, all you see on the boards are apologists telling everyone they're simply "doing it wrong". This advice isn't entirely incorrect...people really do some dumb stuff.
However, this advice doesn't explain away all of WPF's performance problems. They're very real...and not going away until someone at MS fixes them. Regrettably, there seems to be absolutely zero movement on that front.
|
|
|
|
|
"Quote: The framework incorporates some really great ideas and then falls flat in the implementation.
I agree, to some extent. WPF uses the GPU instead of the CPU as WinForms does so rendering should be faster. But, in my case, I started with WinForms and before that MFC. Drag and dropping the controls was much easier and I spent less time on coding my window and more time on my application. There is a lot techniques you can do in WPF that you cannot do in WinForms to make a flashy presentation with great graphics, but WinForms is good for basic applications. I have found that I can get flashy usable controls from 3rd parties like Infragistics.
To me, drag and drop is much easier whereas, in the project I'm currently working on, WPF is the workhorse for us, since we keep adding more and more to the controls and sub-controls. Xaml allows us to finely control what we show. If we were to do it programmatically in C#, then it would be similar to QT.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to tie HTML and CSS to compiled C# (instead of JavaScript)? To me, it seems that HTML is much more understandable that Xaml.
|
|
|
|
|
No!
C# does not run on your browser, only JS does.
C# requires the .NET framework, which is pretty huge (and doesn't work on iOS for example).
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
We tried it, but none of our developers really liked it, also judging from the lack of posts on CodeProject it does not seem very popular ...
|
|
|
|
|
It is actually very unpopular... My problem that extensions are using it by default, and the only other option is moving to WinForms... And even that is too easy...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I liked WPF when I used to work with it - you can make some really nice looking apps.
|
|
|
|
|
Granted - I saw some very nice looking ones...
But! If you put a DataGrid on a form and bind it to some data, plus add some buttons to each row (template)... It looks awful...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
hehe "it looks aweful" ?
I'm sure you made it so. 
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: plus add some buttons to each row
Ah thinking like a web developer, I cannot remember when I last had buttons on each row. My VM knows precisely what row is selected so all I need is the action directive, also double click is your friend.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the default look isn't very nice - it takes a bit of effort to style the app, but webpages are like that as well. You can get WPF themes or third part controls that look nice out of the box.
|
|
|
|
|
Jacquers wrote: you can make some really nice looking apps.
...if you're willing to allocate the resources to do it. Otherwise WPF apps can be made to look every bit as ugly as WinForms-based apps.
If your focus is not on the UI, then WPF adds a lot of cost (in terms of learning overhead) with very little return, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the default look isn't very nice - it takes a bit of effort to style the app, but webpages are like that as well. You can get WPF themes or third part controls that look nice out of the box.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
