1. API ?
Is there any way for a program to detect CTRL-ALT-DEL, and do what-ever,
*before* Windoze brings up it's 'Close Program'
dialog ?
2. Re: API ?
On 18 Dec 2003, at 19:20, Wolf wrote:
>
>
> Is there any way for a program to detect CTRL-ALT-DEL, and do what-ever,
> *before* Windoze brings up it's 'Close Program' dialog ?
You mean like to hide itself, so the victim won't know it's there? There's other
ways to find it running, sorry.
Kat
3. Re: API ?
Wolf,
integer onoff
if onoff then --disable
SystemParametersInfo( SPI_SCREENSAVERRUNNING, onoff, 0, 0)
....
....
0 = enable ctl-alt-delete
Euman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolf" <wolfritz at KING.IGS.NET>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: API ?
>
>
> Is there any way for a program to detect CTRL-ALT-DEL, and do what-ever,
> *before* Windoze brings up it's 'Close Program'
> dialog ?
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
4. Re: API ?
From: "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com>
> You mean like to hide itself, so the victim won't know it's there? There's
> other
> ways to find it running, sorry.
Not quite.... I'm trying to set 8 parallel ports to some determinate state
*before* Windoze arbitrarily suspends the
program's activity. The dialog's blahblah.exe ...working(not responding) message
seems to suggest a more orderly
suspension *might* be possible?
[ like, hey... wait a sec, I'm doin' something important at the moment here ! ]
Yea, I know there's 200 pages of 'legal' docs telling us we can't use Windoze
for *anything* critical,
( or, is that ... for anything? )
but I'm a bit 'hardware' lazy at the moment...
5. Re: API ?
On 19 Dec 2003, at 7:00, Wolf wrote:
>
>
> From: "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com>
> > You mean like to hide itself, so the victim won't know it's there? There's
> > other ways to find it running, sorry.
>
> Not quite.... I'm trying to set 8 parallel ports to some determinate state
> *before* Windoze arbitrarily suspends the program's activity. The dialog's
> blahblah.exe ...working(not responding) message seems to suggest a more
> orderly
> suspension *might* be possible? [ like, hey... wait a sec, I'm doin' something
> important at the moment here ! ]
>
> Yea, I know there's 200 pages of 'legal' docs telling us we can't use Windoze
> for *anything* critical, ( or, is that ... for anything? )
> but I'm a bit 'hardware' lazy at the moment...
Eight hardware parallel ports? Can you cram that many onto a windows box?
May i suggest separate boxen, and one port on the computer, might be
cheaper (altho slower, but it's used for such things as zip discs)?
Or even two on the puter and an external box (write the your external device
address to one actual hardware port, and read/write it on the other actual
hardware port)? This gives you 256 devices on the external box, and
essentially the same speed of the puter hardware, since the cpu is many
times faster than the parallel ports. And it would save you installing extra
port cards in the computer(s). This would be easy to do, i believe. There is
even existing port software in the archives.
Kat,
dreams hardware design.
6. Re: API ?
<pissed_response>
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't you do a bit of proper programming?
Putting a program into a long loop in an event driven OS is a BAD IDEA.
Try using a separate thread, or do you not know what a thread is?
</pissed_response>
Sorry, but I get a bit pissed when people ridicule Windows when they
don't even know what they're doing.
Wolf wrote:
>
>
>From: "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com>
>
>
>>You mean like to hide itself, so the victim won't know it's there? There's
>>other
>>ways to find it running, sorry.
>>
>>
>Not quite.... I'm trying to set 8 parallel ports to some determinate state
>*before* Windoze arbitrarily suspends the
>program's activity. The dialog's blahblah.exe ...working(not responding)
>message seems to suggest a more orderly
>suspension *might* be possible?
>[ like, hey... wait a sec, I'm doin' something important at the moment here ! ]
>
>Yea, I know there's 200 pages of 'legal' docs telling us we can't use Windoze
>for *anything* critical,
>( or, is that ... for anything? )
> but I'm a bit 'hardware' lazy at the moment...
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
7. Re: API ?
Kat wrote:
>Eight hardware parallel ports? Can you cram that many onto a windows box?
>
>
Is case you didn't notice, Windows runs on the same hardware as *nix.
I'm assuming you're a *nix head because only *nix heads would make such
a blatently uneducated comment. It's *all the same* man.
8. Re: API ?
On 19 Dec 2003, at 18:59, Isaac Raway wrote:
Kat wrote:
>Eight hardware parallel ports? Can you cram that many onto a windows box?
>
>
Is case you didn't notice, Windows runs on the same hardware as *nix.
I'm assuming you're a *nix head because only *nix heads would make such
a blatently uneducated comment. It's *all the same* man.
Ah, the opportunity to spew more venom, as some say i do...... Lemme
count the mistakes in that reply...
1) windows and nix on the same hardware: duh, really, golly gee,
thanks for
telling us that! You must be all of 7 years old to catch my comment in
that
way?
2) I am not a *nix head, never was, prolly never will be.
3) Most *nix heads are smarter than you seem to be.
4) Most *nix heads have no use for 8 parallel ports like Wolf
mentioned, and
wouldn't jump someone with such nonsense like you did. In fact, most
people wouldn't try to install 8 ports on a single box, even if they
knew how
to.
5) It's not all the same. Windoze, dos, and *nix do not allow access
to the
underlaying hardware the same way at all. Grabbing the time with dos32 on
a windows box will not guarantee reliable or timely access, and may
result in
data loss. Do anything i want in dos. I dunno *nix.
6) most boxes don't have enough free interrupts to handle 8 parallel
ports,
remember the hardware standard was set way back at 8, even getting 15
is a
patch. Polling the cards to see who yanked on the int line is
potentially time
consuming, throwing things out of sync.
7) No one said a thing about loops. (re: your other abrasive email)
8) Any preemptive OS (such as windose after win3.xx) will have a event
loop,
cally our event processes if anything is que'd for them, and if not,
skip over it
to the next process. Go buy a clue.
9) You assume i am a man, i assume you are an uneducated animal.
Kat
9. Re: API ?
Only blatantly uneducated make these sorts of spelling errors. It's *not*
all the same, man!
jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Isaac Raway" <isaac-topica at blueapples.org>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: API ?
>
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> >Eight hardware parallel ports? Can you cram that many onto a windows box?
> >
> >
> Is case you didn't notice, Windows runs on the same hardware as *nix.
> I'm assuming you're a *nix head because only *nix heads would make such
> a blatently uneducated comment. It's *all the same* man.
10. Re: API ?
Kat wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2003, at 18:59, Isaac Raway wrote:
> > > Kat wrote:
> > > Eight hardware parallel ports? Can you cram that many onto a windows box?
> > Is case you didn't notice, Windows runs on the same hardware as *nix.
> > I'm assuming you're a *nix head because only *nix heads would make such
> > a blatently uneducated comment. It's *all the same* man.
>
> Ah, the opportunity to spew more venom, as some say i do......
Well, I'd say those people are a bit unfair. I wouldn't really call this
venom...
> Lemme count the mistakes in that reply...
>
> 1) windows and nix on the same hardware: duh, really, golly gee,
> thanks for telling us that! You must be all of 7 years old to catch my comment
> in
> that way?
My point was that if you can get it to happen on another OS, it's
probably possible with Windows. That's the real thing you should be
picking apart, as it's probably not true anyway.
> 2) I am not a *nix head, never was, prolly never will be.
Fine.
> 3) Most *nix heads are smarter than you seem to be.
My point was not so much intelligence, but the fact that *nix people are
really rabid in their bashing of "Windoze"--seemingly for no other
reason than the bashing itself--and I'm just getting sick of it.
> 4) Most *nix heads have no use for 8 parallel ports like Wolf
> mentioned, and wouldn't jump someone with such nonsense like you did. In fact,
> most
> people wouldn't try to install 8 ports on a single box, even if they
> knew how to.
That's a lot of generalization. Just because someone uses a *nix means
they have no use for 8 parallel ports?
> 5) It's not all the same. Windoze, dos, and *nix do not allow access
> to the underlaying hardware the same way at all. Grabbing the time with dos32
> on
> a windows box will not guarantee reliable or timely access, and may
> result in data loss. Do anything i want in dos. I dunno *nix.
I submit to this.
> 6) most boxes don't have enough free interrupts to handle 8 parallel
> ports, remember the hardware standard was set way back at 8, even getting 15
> is a patch. Polling the cards to see who yanked on the int line is
> potentially time consuming, throwing things out of sync.
> 7) No one said a thing about loops. (re: your other abrasive email)
Nothing else is capable of preventing a process from handling it's
events. "Loop" includes blocking calls, because they're actually in a
loop somewhere.
> 8) Any preemptive OS (such as windose after win3.xx) will have a event
> loop, cally our event processes if anything is que'd for them, and if not,
> skip over it to the next process. Go buy a clue.
A thread with an event loop in Windows is expected to respond to events.
If the thread is doing something that prevents it from properly
processing events, Windows assumes that the application has dead locked,
and rightly so. If your interface is unresponsive (which will be the
case if Windows "arbitrarily" decides it's locked up), then it's
worthless anyway.
That's why we use different threads for parallel and serial IO, and keep
the GUI in the main thread.
> 9) You assume i am a man, i assume you are an uneducated animal.
Well, I am a man. But, last time I checked, I wasn't an animal and I was
rather intelligent.
Kat
Love & Peace
Isaac
