At the end of the day, nobody wants to end up with code like this, right?

static void MyMessagebox(HWND hWnd,
      LPCTSTR lpText,
      LPCTSTR lpCaption,
      UINT uType,
      WORD wLanguageId)
{
  System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(lpText,lpCaption);
}

Scary? Well ... it’s in fact completely legal C# code taken from the following program:

using System; 

 
using WORD = System.Int16;
using HWND = System.Int32;
using LPCTSTR = System.String;
using UINT = System.UInt32;
 
class ScaryThing
{
  static void MyMessagebox(HWND hWnd,
    LPCTSTR lpText,
    LPCTSTR lpCaption,
    UINT uType,
    WORD wLanguageId)
  {
    System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(lpText,lpCaption);
  }
 
  [STAThread]
  static void Main(string[] args)
  {
    LPCTSTR foo = "Foo";
    LPCTSTR bar = "Bar";
    MyMessagebox(0,foo,bar,0,0);
  }
}

But you wouldn't want to, would you? So why does the use of LPCTSTR feel wrong, whereas the use of string instead of System.String doesn't? All three are equally right or wrong, but believe me - only the BCL name System.String is universally understood.

Lesson's learnt:

• Use the BCL type names
• Don't redefine your type's names to match your old habits ;-)

It all started out with my decision to buy a (lowest price) iiyama 19" TFT providing me with 1600x1200 which I planned to operate as my main screen in a dualhead setup.

Unfortunately, when used with my Matrox G450, the display was way too blurry (at least by my standards, which are quite high. I sat there with a magnifying glass comparing the display with my Vaio's built-in TFT). I therefore decided to switch to DVI and shell out some bucks for a digital dual head card.

I somehow ended up with buying an Asus V8420 which is based on a GeForce4 Ti4200 and which somehow is a pretty weird card for a non-gamer like me. However, the result was brilliant. Don't ever try to run 1600x1200 on analog output as your combination of display adapter, cable and LCD panel might not be able to sync correctly. (I tried three different analog display adapters and two cables.). 

But now, the problems really started: I've been running W2K3 Server Enterprise Edition for some days and, to say the least, it doesn't seem as if this operating system is about to become the main platform for games. It seems as if Asus therefore decided not to provide too much support for it at the given time. After installing the WXP drivers (and well after confirming a hundred "not supported. not digitally signed."-message boxes) strange things happend:

Windows greated me with about five "Invalid instruction in RunDll.exe" message boxes after each reboot. And, strangely enough, when right-clicking on the desktop and hovering over "Arrange Icons By ... " or "New..." my system locked up for exactly 10 seconds with CSRSS.EXE taking up 99% CPU. I used Filemon, Regmon and Ethereal but couldn't get anywhere near the source of this problem. The only thing absolutely consistent was the wait time of exactly 10 seconds. I guess one has to be Mark Russinovich to know what's going on here.

As I'm neither Mark nor did I know what has been going on here, I instead decided to try and install the original NVidia drivers. Great wonders: it works. I only get one more "Invalid instruction" when trying to use NVidia's tray icon about which I don't care too much. No more 10 second delays ...

Lessons learnt in the past week:

• When running TFTs in 1600x1200 use DVI. Don't use analog - it sucks.
• When running an Asus display adapter on W2K3, use the Nvidia drivers.

See http://www.microsoft.com/biztalk/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp : "BizTalk Server 2002 will run on the upcoming production versions of Windows Server 2003 with the application of Service Pack 1 for BizTalk Server 2002. SP1 is scheduled for availability within 90 days of the Windows Server 2003 release to manufacturing."

So that's why it didn't work. Thanks. I should have checked myself.

Congrats from my side fly out to the Mindreef team and Sam who (independently) won two Jolt Awards. Wow. This really rocks!

Congratulations on passing the test teach with flying colors.

[...]

Welcome aboard Ingo!

That's going to be some serious fun.

This is going to be one of the most important "talks" in more than a year now and I'm really excited about it. If it turns out ok, I guess you'll hear about it from the usual suspect's blogs. Otherwise, I'll just tear out my calendar's page of March 27th [1], and will never mention this day's events again ;-)

Wish me luck, it's going to be fun!

[1] Which would be a pretty hard thing to do - considering my use of Outlook on a TPC.

If you want to subscribe, you can do so at http://www.ingorammer.com/NL (it's free, it's bi-weekly). You can also check out today's issue.

Now, let me - the humble person who I am - state some of my wishes:

• Just make it a development tool. I'd really like to embed InfoPath forms into my WinForms apps.
• Give me Events, give me the InfoSet. I'd love to fully integrate forms like these with my real apps.
• Let me redist it without depending on Office 2003. In fact, just include it in .NET and let me redist it for free. The reason for this final - and maybe aggressive - demand is that my client's customers [1] won't easily allow me to deploy Office 2003 with our applications. And that's not just for the cost of the licenses but instead for the testing and support issues involved. It's hard to get them to roll out .NET - it's absolutely impossible to make them roll out Office 2003 just for a small web services client.

.NET Bloggers: Ben, me, Sascha

Clemens has also been there - but he left before we took the photo. I guess that makes yesteday evening the largest .NET weblogger gathering in Central Europe (German-speaking parts). Unfortunately, Christian hasn't been around.