| Author |
Re: Clipper in Windows Vista
|
|
| Martin 2007-02-16, 7:55 am |
| A customer tried and failed - it would not switch to full screen and would
not run in VESA2 mode in a window.
Any ideas on how to fix?
Not including removal of VGA mode of our software.
How will games run?
| |
| Rene Flores 2007-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| Martin:
AFAIK there's no full screen mode in Vista.
Regards
Rene Flores
http://www.ciber-tec.com
escribió:
> A customer tried and failed - it would not switch to full screen and would
> not run in VESA2 mode in a window.
>
> Any ideas on how to fix?
>
> Not including removal of VGA mode of our software.
>
> How will games run?
>
>
| |
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) 2007-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| Dear Martin:
"Martin" <spamspam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:er4bad$dqv$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> A customer tried and failed - it would not switch to full
> screen and would not run in VESA2 mode in a window.
>
> Any ideas on how to fix?
Switch to either WinXP or Linux. Micro$haft "deprecated" full
screen DOS.
> Not including removal of VGA mode of our software.
>
> How will games run?
Micro$haft doesn't care. You get transparent bordered windows,
and give up full screen DOS boxes. No choice. No fix. No
workaround. Your screen doesn't belong to you, apparently.
I always thought it was a sign of things to come when Windows
"welcomes" you to your own machine.
David A. Smith
| |
| Martin 2007-02-23, 3:55 am |
| >>Martin:[color=darkred]
Hm so Vista is broken
| |
| Martin 2007-02-23, 3:55 am |
| >>Switch to either WinXP or Linux. Micro$haft "deprecated" full[color=darkred]
Vet naughty of them
[color=darkred]
But I need full screen are they trying to help other O/Ses?
| |
| Richard Bos 2007-02-23, 3:55 am |
| "Martin" <spamspam@spam.spam> wrote:
>
> Hm so Vista is broken
Queen Anne is dead.
Richard
| |
|
| "Martin" <spamspam@spam.spam> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
grupi:ermbi9$ljg$2$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Vet naughty of them
>
>
> But I need full screen are they trying to help other O/Ses?
>
but, what about having win console, borderless, covering the whole screen?
isn't it functional replacement of "full-screen" appearance?
for long time ago, i preffer to use 25 x 80 char app inside console win, not
full-screen, and there is nothing bad in it.
why is must to have win cover whole display?
anyway, it is quite odd to have 25 x 80 char full screen app stretched over
new 16/9 wide displays
| |
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) 2007-02-23, 7:55 am |
| Dear sali:
"sali" <sali@euroherc.hr> wrote in message
news:ermgu3$470$1@ls5.tel.net.ba...
....
> for long time ago, i preffer to use 25 x 80 char app
> inside console win, not full-screen, and there is
> nothing bad in it. why is must to have win cover
> whole display?
>
> anyway, it is quite odd to have 25 x 80 char full
> screen app stretched over new 16/9 wide displays
Don't worry sali, those of us with bad eyesight, with use the
montior to concentrate on a single task, or without the money to
get a larger monitor will die soon. Then you will be alone at
the mercy of those that take away, because they deprecate what
you have.
David A. Smith
| |
| Stephen Quinn 2007-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| Martin
Time to move to another dev system, one that doesn't require DOS windows<g>
CYA
Steve
| |
| Martin 2007-02-28, 7:55 am |
| >>Martin[color=darkred]
windows<g>[color=darkred]
Not a quick task though - we are but it will take another 6 months to
complete.
Soem customers do not want to change software and I can't see why Microsoft
had to break this.
| |
| Stephen Quinn 2007-02-28, 7:55 am |
| Martin
> Not a quick task though - we are but it will take another 6 months to
> complete.
Nothing is ever easy<g>
> Soem customers do not want to change software and I can't see why Microsoft
> had to break this.
My view is that M$ should have dropped backwards compatability (16 bit) when
they released NT4.
CYA
Steve
| |
| Norman Perelson 2007-03-02, 3:55 am |
|
"Stephen Quinn" <stevejqNO@SPbigpondAM.net.au> wrote in message
news:2MeFh.4771$8U4.110@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Martin
>
> Nothing is ever easy<g>
>
> My view is that M$ should have dropped backwards compatability (16 bit)
> when they released NT4.
>
> CYA
> Steve
Why should they have dropped backward compatibility to 16 bit, Steve?
Do you view it as correct that Vista can't do full-screen?
Best regards,
Norman
| |
| Stephen Quinn 2007-03-02, 6:55 pm |
| Norman
> Why should they have dropped backward compatibility to 16 bit, Steve?
One thing it would have done is to move everyone away from creating new 16bit
apps years ago knowing there'd be no support available in future OS versions.
IMO Windows would be a better OS if it didn't have to cater for backward
compatability, it's overhead that has to be shoehorned in to make it work (and
not very well at times)
> Do you view it as correct that Vista can't do full-screen?
I don't do Vista as yet and I've no intention of writing any more 16bit DOS
apps, so I have no problems with what M$ changes in that area.
These days I write code for Windows not DOS.
CYA
Steve
| |
| Martin 2007-03-06, 6:55 pm |
| >>My view is that M$ should have dropped backwards compatability (16 bit)
when[color=darkred]
I used NT4 once I thought it was rubbish! I was amazed they sold NT3.51 so
well.
2000 wasn't bad but I found it was depressing
XP is the best O/S they have done since 98 OSR2, both I find cheerful to use
if you turn off animation and junk. And don't get ratty over XPs rubbish
file dialogue.
98 wins it for | being able to do codeblocks without altgr funny key and a
better file dialogue (you can have details)
Windows 1 & 2 were garbage to be deleted to make room for useful apps - well
it was no use on the PC I had all those years back can't remember if it was
an Apricot 286 or a Dell 386
|
|
|
|