| From: | |
| Date: | 07 Feb 2001 at 21:24:51 |
| Subject: | Re: Custom screens (was: Re: Can someone look at this code?) |
On 06-Feb-01, Allan Odgaard wrote:
>>> As long as you don't call SetDefaultPubScreen() then no windows will
>>> mess up your display. [...]
>> Untrue. [...]
>
> Please elaborate! Are you talking about if the user runs a public screen
> manager? Cause if he do so then surely it's because he wants to control
> where windows should appear. I'm simply saying that by default you
> shouldn't worry about visitor windows simply because you make your
> screen public (which was the argument toward custom screens), further
> actions will have to be taken by the user for this to happen.
I'm just saying if there are technical reasons to disallow windows from other
programs popping up and trampling all over what the owning program is doing
then I don't think public screen access should be offered.
>>> [...] Reminds me a little of the demo-days, where
>>> people went through a lot of trouble to make sure that graphics and
>>> modules couldn't be ripped from the demos.
>> I believe you mean they tried to make the demo do a whole lot very
>> quickly with a small size. Well, efficiency has nothing to do with
>> scattering .iff .8svx and .mod files all over the place. And when you
>> freeze/kill the OS the odds of any filesystems still being alive are
>> dubious.
>
> No this is not what I ment. Some had special code to detect Action
> Replay etc. Besides, it was just a side node.
Odds are that is to protect their code so other demo doers can't get their
code.
I wouldn't say thats always the case, but that seems like a good reason to me,
given how competitive demo groups seemed to be.
>>> No-one considered that users wanted to hear the modules in trackers
>>> running in the backgroumd, use the graphics for backgrounds pictures,
>>> or print them in magazines when reviewing demos etc.
>> A reviewer for a publication of a decent size would not find getting
>> screenshots difficult.
>
> I happen to know that it *was* a real problem for some! As I understood
> it they photographed the monitor for the best result, thus needed a way
> to freeze the demo or simply make a screen dump for static display.
I see a few options here. Hack in something to interupt the CPU clock, then
digitize slow scan the output of a decent encoder. (I dunno about feasability
though) Or actually configure the camera shutter to go at the display refresh
speed (not good for PAL I suspect). A more modern way could be to run the demo
on an emulator.
>>> Why is there some strange idea that the programmer knows what the
>>> user want,
>>
>> Why is there some strange idea that all users know what the programmer
>> wants? :-)
>
> That idea has certainly escaped my attention. But based on your reply
> I'm assuming that you're just a smart ass...
Yeah, your post seemed a bit one-way though.
Nevermind the programmer often does end up being a user and hence does know
what a user wants. :-)
>>> and should try to limit the user in a way that's not just avoiding
>>> mistakes, but gives the super user a lot of trouble doing the things
>>> he'd like to do?
>>
>> Because making the computer do its thing is more important. A 68000 at
>> 7.15 MHz doesn't offer the headroom a dual Athlon 1.2GHz with a
>> GeForce chip does.
>
> What has this to do with anything? You may argue that a custom screens
> allows you to bypass some system functions and thus do more lowlevel
> rendering, but I've already touched this subject in another letter.
>
> Besides, I doubt this is really the case. If it is then you're probably
> just a lame programmer!
Well, I've seen some stuff from lame programmers on the aforementioned
outdated systems that I have yet to see anywhere else.
I've also seen some lame stuff. But the cool stuff is cool.
And yes, I'm a horrible programmer and would be surprised if I could bang out
a hello world without a little reference. :-)
Thats why I've been semi-lurking here. Shame more working sourcecode isn't
sent here...
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/451227/_/981577609/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->