Thursday, July 30, 2009
Internet Explorer 7/8 SDK
Apparently, there's no such thing as Internet Explorer (IE, IE8) SDK. There's only the Internet Explorer 8 headers and libraries. I also can't find headers and libraries for older versions.
The download link for the Internet Explorer 8 headers and libraries can be found at:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bd98f760-1279-46f2-a456-de6df365584b&displaylang=en
The download link for the Internet Explorer 8 headers and libraries can be found at:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bd98f760-1279-46f2-a456-de6df365584b&displaylang=en
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Speedtest
Starting today, I'll be keeping track of my speedtests so I'll have proof that Sun Cellular did not deliver what they promised.
SUN Wireless Broad Falsely Advertising 2 Mbps!
My broadband speed reduced to a wreck when June began. Websites needed to be refreshed several times before they load and http downloads reduced to a mere 20 kbytes/s. Sun Wireless Broadband's supposed strength: video streaming from sites like YouTube and MySpace, vanished into polluted Manila air, they'll often fail to stream completely. Uploads, even of files less than 10 kb of size will take forever and will fail 99/100 of the time.
I was getting frustrated so I decided to revisit the thread which I followed before I subscribed to this service. This thread at tipidpc.com discusses issues about Sun broadband wireless, the 3G broadband solution offered by Sun Cellular. I was surprised by the uproar of the subscribers there. THE REASON? Sun Cellular capped the speeds to 640kbps, making their advertised speed of 2Mpbs virtually unattainable. They discovered this atrocity because a user named lightninglord2000 posted a software where you can find several infos about your wireless connection, these info include upload and download limits. This software is called MDMA, Mobile Data Monitoring Application, available through this website. His post about MDMA can be found here.
I myself tested how my connection is. MDMA did not need any installation and is packaged on a 30KB exe. Running it was infuriating, since I found out why a 10 KB file was a nightmare to upload:
You see that Uplink amount? A whopping 32 kbps. (that a small b so thats a bit, divide that amount by 8 to get the byte equivalent) What the heck is with that? a dial-up connection is gives more of a fight than my connection! And how can I achieve the advertised 2mbps connection if they limited my throughput to 640 kpbs?
So to SUN cellular, I suggest you get your act together because you are clearly insulting our intelligence with what your doing. Get it togethere, before it hits the fan.
I was getting frustrated so I decided to revisit the thread which I followed before I subscribed to this service. This thread at tipidpc.com discusses issues about Sun broadband wireless, the 3G broadband solution offered by Sun Cellular. I was surprised by the uproar of the subscribers there. THE REASON? Sun Cellular capped the speeds to 640kbps, making their advertised speed of 2Mpbs virtually unattainable. They discovered this atrocity because a user named lightninglord2000 posted a software where you can find several infos about your wireless connection, these info include upload and download limits. This software is called MDMA, Mobile Data Monitoring Application, available through this website. His post about MDMA can be found here.
I myself tested how my connection is. MDMA did not need any installation and is packaged on a 30KB exe. Running it was infuriating, since I found out why a 10 KB file was a nightmare to upload:
You see that Uplink amount? A whopping 32 kbps. (that a small b so thats a bit, divide that amount by 8 to get the byte equivalent) What the heck is with that? a dial-up connection is gives more of a fight than my connection! And how can I achieve the advertised 2mbps connection if they limited my throughput to 640 kpbs?
So to SUN cellular, I suggest you get your act together because you are clearly insulting our intelligence with what your doing. Get it togethere, before it hits the fan.
.NET Questions - .NET SDK for IE7?
.NET Questions - .NET SDK for IE7?: ".NET SDK for IE7?
Is there a .NET SDK for IE7? Specifically, is it possible to use C# to create an add-in for IE7?
Thank you.
Programming IE7
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Deleting … Approving …
No .NET specific SDK, but yes, you can write Add-ons using .NET/C#. You will have to use Interop to communicate with IE7 COM interfaces, but it isn't too difficuly.
Google: 'browser helper object' c#
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Deleting … Approving …
This is totally discouraged by Microsoft. Use C++/ATL instead.
Rafa Vargas [Recognized User] Send private email
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Deleting … Approving …
In general, using .NET to write addins for unmanaged apps is frowned upon, particularly on shared system stuff like the windows shell, installer, and IE.
The problem is that you're only allowed one CLR in the process, and the first addin that gets loaded chooses which CLR that is. So if the first addin needs .NET 1.1, and the second one needs .NET 3.5, the second one is screwed. But if you load them in the reverse order, it'll work - until the 1.1 addin does something that's no longer supported on 3.5. Ouch.
Office and Visual Studio do a lot of internal backflips to address this problem, so you can write managed addins for those apps.
Chris Tavares Send private email
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Deleting … Approving …"
Is there a .NET SDK for IE7? Specifically, is it possible to use C# to create an add-in for IE7?
Thank you.
Programming IE7
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Deleting … Approving …
No .NET specific SDK, but yes, you can write Add-ons using .NET/C#. You will have to use Interop to communicate with IE7 COM interfaces, but it isn't too difficuly.
Google: 'browser helper object' c#
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Deleting … Approving …
This is totally discouraged by Microsoft. Use C++/ATL instead.
Rafa Vargas [Recognized User] Send private email
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Deleting … Approving …
In general, using .NET to write addins for unmanaged apps is frowned upon, particularly on shared system stuff like the windows shell, installer, and IE.
The problem is that you're only allowed one CLR in the process, and the first addin that gets loaded chooses which CLR that is. So if the first addin needs .NET 1.1, and the second one needs .NET 3.5, the second one is screwed. But if you load them in the reverse order, it'll work - until the 1.1 addin does something that's no longer supported on 3.5. Ouch.
Office and Visual Studio do a lot of internal backflips to address this problem, so you can write managed addins for those apps.
Chris Tavares Send private email
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Deleting … Approving …"
Introduction
This is where they'll all begin. This blog will be more for me than you. The blog will contain knowledge that I'll acquire from the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)