It'd be really cool if MUSHclient would support the latest Windows-specific GUI enhancements. I use Windows Vista (64-bit), and this app looks a bit out of place. The buttons, for example--not themed. The program just generally screams that it is an older application. I love the functionality of MUSHclient, but if it were modernized I think that would help it catch on. I understand that you'd like to support a broad variety of Windows software, but isn't it possible to theme based on do a version check? A lot of Windows apps these days are dropping support for Windows older than XP. I don't think anyone serious about computing should be using anything older than 2000 by now...
Another thing, I'd like to be able to be able to ctrl-c while I am highlighting text in the chat history. Having to right click Copy is a bit annoying.
I wonder if there is a setting I can tweak that would let it apply themes? Under XP the titles have an XP look, but I agree the buttons look older (not that it really matters, but if it can be easily changed, why not?)
I'm not sure if it is even the .exe or the resources file. A while ago the resources were separated out into a separate DLL, maybe if someone edited that with a resource editor it would be possible to upgrade that, and everything would be solved. Maybe.
I think all it takes is to make a 'manifest' file and include that with the application, although I think the preferred way is to put it in as a resource somehow. There's tons of stuff on the net about getting that done tho, I read about it years ago.
Excuse me, nobody serious about computing should be using anything older than 2000???? Excuse me, but not all of us can afford to buy the latest and greatest stuff, and I find that a little annoying, you're talking just like those jerks that manufactor computer equipment that have totally thrown out the idea of backwards compatibility, even most software developers have given up on backwards compatibility and personally being stuck with an older OS myself(one that has worked perfectly well for as long as I've had it) and not being able to even buy a new printer(even though I don't think the drivers could have possiblity changed that much over the last 10 years or so, an ink-jet is an ink-jet) because they want to force people to upgrade to something newer even if it doesn't really give them much they didn't have before and actually makes it harder to run some of the older classic games and software they might have. Also, in my experience many people who play MU* type games are older and not many younger players are getting into it(mostly because they don't know they exist and/or are off playing the fancy graphical online games) so it's entirely possible that somebody running an older computer and OS will be playing MU*s. That's one of the beauties of these games, you could play them with a 100 Mhz computer running Win 95 and a dialup modem if that's all you had(I know the dialup part personally since I had one until last year, although my computer is a lot faster than 100 Mhz).
Anyway, if you could put it in without losing backwards compatibility I couldn't care one way or the other, personally I never liked the fancy buttons and curved corners of XP(It just made the windows bigger and left less space on the screen) and I always changed it to classic style. I can't say that I've had a chance to use Vista and I've kind of been staying away from it from what I've heard of how much more resources, processor, memory, and HD space it uses up compared to running the same program on an older OS. Personally to me, all that matters is functionality, having fancy themes and such is just wasting computing power.
Not to be rude or mean, but I disagree with pretty much everything you just said.
These newer user interfaces are not (usually) just prettier. They're also much more intuitive and make common tasks simpler, unless you're very resistant to change and simply refuse to try anything new.
Most people on the MUDs I play are under 18 years old, actually. Not all kids need graphics. Some of them just like having friends with whom to socialize.
Using old computer hardware has a few benefits, such as being able to run the really old software or work with other really old hardware. Really, though, upgrading your hardware every 3-5 years isn't extremely cost prohibitive any more, and 99% of new PCs will include a new OS for you.
Hearsay is a dangerous thing, too -> http://www.mojaveexperiment.com
Uhm, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by newer interfaces. What I was thinking of was how in Win XP they made the title bar thicker and rounded off. Which in my eyes just made it use up more of the screen. This guy was talking about themed buttons, how exactly does that add functionality? I'm not exactly sure which features you're referring to. Like I said, I haven't tried Vista, I would check it out if I had the chance I suppose, if I knew somebody who had it. I don't think that I'm resistant to change, I just don't see the point of changing when my current system does everything I need it to.
And what exactly do you do for a living anyway that upgrades aren't cost prohibitive? I collect shopping carts at a grocery store for $7 an hour part-time. I clear about $100+ a week. I don't really have an excess of spending money, I could buy a new PC if I wanted to right now, but I just don't need to. My computer has done almost everything I've wanted to do on it just fine for the last 6 years without upgrading the OS or anything, I only upgraded the RAM once and the HDD, other than that I haven't needed anything else. I'm not the sort of guy who buys all the newest fanciest software. There's plenty of fun free games and apps on the internet that'll run just fine on my computer, like MUSHclient for example.
I don't know, maybe there's lots of underage players on MUDs, I don't really play a lot of those, I play on a MUSH, and most of the players there are older. There are a few younger players, but they are far from the majority of the playerbase. All I know is that I was out of high school before I even discovered the existance of MU*s, quite by accident in fact.
Maybe I'm just in unusual circumstances, I never had a lot of money, and the only computers I had before my current computers were garage sale finds. I had old commodore 64s and 128s, I had an AT and XT, once I had a 25 MHz processor, another time like a 133 MHz.
Anyway, enough of my life story, all I was saying is don't give up backwards compatibility. If you can add new features without giving up compatibility with older systems, by all means go ahead, makes no difference to me, but if it suddenly stops working with my system for a relatively minor feature like themed buttons, I'd be pissed.
Quote: I don't know, maybe there's lots of underage players on MUDs, I don't really play a lot of those, I play on a MUSH, and most of the players there are older. There are a few younger players, but they are far from the majority of the playerbase. All I know is that I was out of high school before I even discovered the existance of MU*s, quite by accident in fact.
It's kind of dangerous to make assumptions about the demographics of all MU*s based on just one person's experience. When I was in HS there were about 6 of us playing on one MUD; many other players were also under 18. Many others were also over 18. Looking at the ages of people around me, and knowing how long they've been on the MUD scene, I know they have to have been younger than 18 when they started.
Obviously there are lots of people older than 18 as well, but there are apparently a lot more young people than you seem to think.
Anyhow, I think the take-home point of all this is pretty clear: it's better to remain compatible whenever possible, and if compatibility is to be broken it should not be done lightly at all. Is that a fair statement?
As for the hearsay thing you said, are you referring to the using more resources thing, because I'm pretty sure that's a fact, I looked at the minimum system requirements for a game and it listed them from like 9x to Vista, and Vista's requirements were much higher than those of previous OSs. I thought at first it was a typo or something because it was such a large increase.
Edit: Yeah that's the point I was trying to make. Maybe I shouldn't of said that most players are older, but we can all agree that there /are/ plenty of older people playing right? And even younger people can still have older systems if they're anything like I was and had to get computers from garage sales.
Edit Again: Forgive me if I come across as a little miffed, but some very useful programs have been becoming useless to me lately because of sentiments like this first poster had about most people having newer OSes so it doesn't matter if older OSes are supported anymore. I just recently tried to upgrade to the newest VLC and it seems to only work on XP and above now, I tried downloading a patch that they said might of fixed it but it didn't and I just get an error when I run it, so I had to go back to a previous version and have to watch certain video formats on my laptop now. I can't buy virtually any new hardware from the store anymore because of the same sentiment even though it really shouldn't be that hard to create a driver for an older OS for things like a printer. and it makes no sense for like a network printer not to have backwards support for OSes because not every computer on a network is guaranteed to have specific OSes.
Quote: I can't buy virtually any new hardware from the store anymore because of the same sentiment even though it really shouldn't be that hard to create a driver for an older OS for things like a printer. and it makes no sense for like a network printer not to have backwards support for OSes because not every computer on a network is guaranteed to have specific OSes.
Put yourself in their shoes. How many clients won't or can't upgrade their hardware, and how many sales will be lost because of that, versus how much time (and hence money) would it take to figure out how to talk to an old OS that is hardly supported by its own vendor?
OK, while I have done some programming work before, I can't say I've ever written a device driver, however, I can't imagine that it'd need to be completely rewritten or anything extreme like that just to support an older OS. I could be wrong, like I said, I've never done it, nor do I really know how to do it, but unless it uses some newer OS specific features to do its job, it's probably as simple as changing a few lines of code and recompiling. Again, I could be very wrong there, and if it is more complicated than that, then I'm sorry, but I've seen printer/scanners with support for like every Windows OS ever written(from 9x on) for like $40, and prior to XP if memory serves, virtually everything was backwards compatible, and it never costed anything extra, but all of a sudden when XP came out, everybody stopped supporting almost all versions before it(for a while they still made drivers for ME, but they stopped soon after). I'd like to ask, if anybody reading this thread has written device drivers before, please let me know how hard it is to make them compatible with older OSes? I mean if it needs a major rewrite then I'll be able to understand why people stopped doing it, but if it's relatively minor I'll continue to hate them.
Edit: I guess if they wrote it in .net it'd be harder to make backwards compatible. I've never used .net so I don't know. That's about the only thing I can think of.
Let me make it clear that I wouldn't take away functionality for Windows 98+ users just to make buttons slightly rounded, that would be crazy.
However if for 100 bytes extra XP and Vista users can get their nice user interface, and it keeps working for Windows 98 (or 95 even), then I see no harm.
BTW - I don't want to get into a Vista flame war but I was surprised to see that Warhammer Online recommended 2 Gb of RAM (in itself a lot) for XP users, and 2.6 Gb of RAM for Vista users. So purely by having Vista installed (and keeping everything else the same) you have, apparently, lost 600 Mb of RAM!
I remember when even owning a 600 Mb hard disk was a lot, let alone RAM of that quantity. I mean, to compare, Windows 3.1 needed 4 Mb of RAM I think, Windows 95 needed 8 Mb, Windows 98 maybe 12 Mb, and I think by the time Windows 2000 came out the recommended minimum memory was 16 Mb.
Suddenly Vista somehow consumes 600 Mb *extra* over XP - where did the operating systems that only use 4 Mb go?
I know RAM is getting cheaper, but I wonder what on earth the core operating system needs to do, that it needs another 600 Mb of RAM compared to XP?
There is indeed quite a big change in the underlying architecture. Operating systems work with a good number of layers, and programming .NET is a far different layer than a device driver which goes in a far lower layer. Windows 9x is old and crap for todays standards, and crashes due to those lower layers being quite unrefined compared to todays standards. They were revised, updated, upgraded, rewritten until it became more solid. Think back: when those versions were designed, the Internet was just getting a hold. It wasn't setup for multi-user environments, whereas 2000 and higher are. And that is not all that changed.
In the old days, things crashed and a reboot followed... and if things worked, people were happy. Nowadays, people expect their equipment to work, be easy to use and require little knowledge to operate. It is an entire change in philosophy.
Let me ask you a question. Would you like to drive around in a car of 40 years ago? They are quite difficult to maintain and lack all the comforts we take for granted in cars nowadays. Sure, there are fanatics for everything, who enjoy maintaining them and dealing with problems as they arise (parts aren't being made anymore, etc). Computers are the same - except that things just move faster. Blame Moore's law.
I've actually written something that approaches a device driver -- except that I was writing something on top of the actual device driver (in this case, the serial port driver). Serial ports happen to be dirt simple in that you're just shuffling bytes around, but even so you depend on the functionality exposed by the OS. If a different OS has a different API, then sure, you might only need to change a few lines of code, but you have to figure out which lines exactly you need to change, and what to change them do. This can be several days' worth of work, at best. For more complicated drivers -- or if you start using modern layers to make your life easier, let alone modern languages like .NET -- who knows how long it could take?
Besides, even simple things like having a multiple user computer can totally change how you write a driver, because you might have to set everything up to talk to the OS's security layer, for example. Supporting an older OS would mean figuring out a whole new set of things to do or not do.
And then there's still the basic question: how many people do you really think are in your shoes? Clearly that are some, but do you really think that number exceeds a few percent? I don't have any data, and I suspect nobody here does, but Win '98 is becoming a pretty rare beast.
And finally, just a brief repetition because I think it was missed: MS isn't even supporting development on older platforms anymore. So somebody who wants to write code for them has to either already know how to do it, or learn via other means, and you also need to get older versions of the various runtime libraries (the whole libcrt.dll thing).
Oh, don't give me the "mojave experiment" BS Larkin. I laughed my ass off the first time I saw the commercial. Some clowns from Microsoft get what ***has to be*** optimized, or at least sufficient, machines, stuff Vista and a bunch of their own programs on it, then sit a bunch of clueless rubes down to use it, under carefully controlled conditions, in which they can stack the deck any way they want, and this is **supposed** to address all the statements ever made by people in the real world, running *other* non-Microsoft applications, trying to deal with its screwed up security model, trying to configure it in ways that are not "standard", trying to install it with other OSes, and every other damn thing you know bloody well they where neither allowed to do/try, never mind was done or tried, by the people setting up the "experiment". It might as well have been you in a car with a salesman, taking a "test drive" for a few blocks around the sales lot (don't worry, the plastic pegs holding all the panels on won't break for 6 months and the engine is guaranteed to not fall out for "at least" 500 miles). lol
Seriously, I didn't think anyone would fall for that nonsense, it was so blindingly obvious that they would have near complete control over what got put on the machines, what hardware it ran on, etc. They might as well handed everyone a fracking XBox 360, where things work perfectly (well at least the OS, though the hardware is a bit iffy) then claimed "that" was Vista.
Oh, and.. Just to be clear, what "features" of the new GUI are so great that you need them, or, more to the point, haven't been basically stolen from some version of Linux that was testing them 5 years before Vista was ever released? ;)
To each his own then. Maybe I'm just the only person who doesn't work for Microsoft and loves Windows Vista. Not worth the time and effort to explain why I love it to people who are most definitely not going to agree. :P
Darn it, you guys took away my main justification for hating the guys that no longer do older OSes. I just thought they do 2-3 different versions, what is the trouble of one more, but I guess I was wrong. I can't exactly hate them for not making them for my OS, after all, MS released XP soon after and just abandoned it, it was only bad timing I got my current OS instead of XP, if I had gotten my computer from Dell just a short time later I would have XP on it right now. Oh well, it was a gift from my uncle kind of, so I can't complain too much. I have another better speced computer I got from a garage sale that has XP, and I've been meaning to copy my stuff over onto it, but I haven't had free time, and I'm a bit concerned about a mild burning smell I noticed when I turned it on, I assume it was because it hadn't been used for a while and had dust in it. Also, I really didn't feel like resetting up all my apps. Moving to a new computer is a bit of a chore, kinda like starting over after a reformat and OS reinstall, it really sucks, especially when you've spent years getting all the programs and shortcuts and settings just how you like them. Especially when your old computer already had 2 HDDs which makes it a lot harder than just taking the old HD out of the old one, installing it in the new one as a secondary drive, then being able to access all your files while copying stuff over.(Still have to reinstall all the programs and such.)
I suppose I'll eventually have to get around to moving my stuff over to a new PC(either when I have the time or when my current computer breaks down, if it's the former I'll give my current computer to my brother, it's more than enough for what he uses the computer for, and it'd probably be able to access the wireless network better than his current one.(It keeps getting a BSOD at odd times, BTW, Win 2000 really sucks, on older BSODs you could just hit enter to try to recover, in Win 2000 it seems it gives an obscure message and you have to reset your computer using the reset button, or maybe it's just my brothers computer)).
Anyway, I drifted way off topic, but my point still stands, there might not be a great number of people still stuck on older computers, but they do exist, older computers that can't handle newer OSes don't just disappear, they're either sold at garage sales, perhaps refurbished, maybe donated somewhere like maybe a thrift store, I just can't imagine people throwing away perfectly working computers just because they won't run the newest stuff. I mean Commodores are still drifting around everywhere and their specs completely suck relative to new computers, I mean I'm not sure the processor speed, but they only had 64-128 /K/ of RAM, I still find it amazing they still were able to run so many games with cool graphics with only that much RAM.
Edit: BTW, Win XP sucks in some places too compared to older OSes: 1.) Alt-Ctrl-Del doesn't freeze running apps and allow you to end task anything, it keeps running and you have to wait for the dialog to come up(because one of the main reasons to end task is it's lagging the computer). 2.) I once tried to end task something as Admin, and it said I didn't have permission, who the heck thought of putting permissions in to end task, and why did they allow it to be made so even the admin couldn't do it? I almost had to pop out the batteries and unplug the darn laptop. 3.) File/Folder sharing, by default there's no security, anybody on the network can access it, the only control is whether it's read only or full. You have to find an obscure setting to enable any kind of security, and then it's per user, and the per folder passwords are gone, which I suppose now that I think about it allows more specific control over who has access to what from the computer doing the sharing, but I had to setup identical user accounts on all computers involved, which was annoying. Alright, end rant, need to get sleep for work tomorrow.
Quote: and I'm a bit concerned about a mild burning smell I noticed when I turned it on, I assume it was because it hadn't been used for a while and had dust in it.
I'd suggest opening it up and using one of those compressed air canisters if you have one, or if not, a vacuum cleaner or even good old fashioned blowing (just make sure you close your nose/eyes...). If the burning smell continues, it might be more serious. But it could just be the layers of dust/dirt/etc. that are burning.
Quote: I once tried to end task something as Admin, and it said I didn't have permission, who the heck thought of putting permissions in to end task, and why did they allow it to be made so even the admin couldn't do it?
It's weird that an admin couldn't do it, but this is one of the realities of multiple-user computers. If you and I are sharing a computer, I sure don't want you to be able to arbitrarily kill my programs. ;)
Quote: It's weird that an admin couldn't do it, but this is one of the realities of multiple-user computers. If you and I are sharing a computer, I sure don't want you to be able to arbitrarily kill my programs. ;)
Actually, if you have admin rights, you have *permission* to do it. If the process is kernel mode and flagged as critical, or windows thinks a debugger has been attached to the process, windows will keep system stability in tact by not allowing the task to be ended.
If it's a random task that you're trying to kill that way, run a virus scan on your machine.
Well, at least for me Larkin, Vista is said to only make the same issues that have driven me nuts trying to get XP set up the way I wanted, worse. I am sure it would work.. OK, if I had it. I am also sure that I would have to upgrade my video, which is right now at least adequate, and that would mean upgrading other stuff too, including possibly the MB. The cost of a "decent" version of the OS, along with the price of buying **good** components (and not just some $1,000 pre-built that cuts down the standards on everything from the mother board to who knows what else to keep the cost sane), just doesn't make it viable at the moment. Its even less viable, given that an OS hasn't sunk this fast since IBM's OS/2, and that was "also" mostly Microsoft's fault, but for an entirely different reason, mainly that Microsoft was even more anti-third party at the time and between 95 and 98 opted to "break" compatibility by changing how a lot of things got loaded, and the entry points needed to use OS/2 as a shell over Windows (it basically did the same thing WINE does, but to the kernel, not just a few DLLs. (Some nice features of that OS, like proper memory safeguards, where never introduced in Windows *until* XP, and some other feature still are not at all).
It simply costs too much by itself, never mind with new hardware, and with my having to bang my head trying to "fix" things that barely work right after "fixing" them in XP as it is, just so I can maybe play some games that I can probably just buy for the XBox instead. Your argument is sort of like... "Limos are so much nicer than compacts, why doesn't everyone buy a Limo?", while ignoring all of the down sides to that theory. That they may not be down sides to you means nothing at all. Besides, like I said, nothing MS has done in the last few versions has been theirs, its been **badly** implemented versions of experimental features other OSes already had in them. Its like playing in Second Life. Lots of wonderful stuff, if it worked perfectly, but almost ***none*** of it ever works 100% right, 100% of the time (or even 80% right 50% of the time, in some cases). I have to deal with that with a virtual world, I don't need to deal with it in my real world OS as well. ;)
The process I was trying to kill was the Norton AntiVirus installer I got when I signed up for DSL. It hung in the middle of installation and it wouldn't let me kill the task, I could swear it said something like not having permission. I think I managed to stop it by hitting Start menu Shutdown, and restarting the computer that way. Then I installed it little by little instead of all at once, which seemed to work, BTW, does anybody know a good Antivirus program as good or better than Norton that could possibly run on Win ME and is free? Just a long shot there. Edit: I tried installing the version that came with my DSL on my desktop but it slowed the entire computer down to a crawl to the point I had to disable it. Then I just installed it on my laptop where it seems to work just fine. Also, it overwrote the old version of NAV I had and for some reason the new version doesn't have the ability to set reminders which I used a lot. You know, schedule a message to be displayed at certain times, I coded my own program for my brothers computer, but since I'm not sure how to create a new scheduled task using Windows task scheduler from within VB6, I had to set the message time and text manually.
Wow you guys just totally sidetracked the orginal statement. You know I get annoyed when people say "I could care less". So what! Everyone else is not you! Maybe some people like decent looking interfaces. It's the same way with graphics games. I'd much rather play graphic games on an Xbox 360 or some of the newer games on my PC that require at least 1GB RAM than some ancient game where the graphics suck. I pulled out one of my old Rainbow Six Rogue Spear games the other day and the graphics suck so bad I just stopped playing. Maybe its because I got used to the newer graphics of games like Rainbow Six Vegas.
I think being able to have a newer looking them would be nice.
Save this file (as MUSHclient.exe.manifest) in the same directory as MUSHclient.exe. In other words, put the above text (in a file named MUSHclient.exe.manifest) into the same directory as the MUSHclient executable.
Note that using this updated looks seems to introduce some graphical glitches, particular in the tabbed windows (if you are using tabs) and the toolbars. I am not sure the exact reason for that, possibly some hard-coded values in toolbar sizes do not take into account the different look.
Hmm. Actually, looks to me like your "glitch", may be the updated look trying to display text that it doesn't have room for, which the original bar didn't. It may be some sort of "default" text, like the window ID, or something, which needs to be blanked, to get rid of the problem. One of the annoyances of "updated" GUIs is that they can do things that the prior ones didn't, and if you don't know what, you can end up with them doing them anyway, even when you didn't ask. :p
No I have those glitches too. It's the gripper handle on the gripper toolbar doesn't refresh correctly (the part circled in the pic). If you move the bar around, then place it back it appears correct. However, if you open the editor then close it the glitch appears again as if part of the editor is stuck to that spot. For example, after I closed the editor that area turned into a fragmented blue shape. The same thing at the bottom of that pic is happening too. Whatever is on the screen before you switch to Mush will appear in those spots. Like right now my browser graphics show there when I switch back and forth and the toolbar on my browser is black so they appear black. I can even see part of the little Mushclient logo from the tab on my browser.
How do you add images? The [img] tag doesn't work.
You don't. Only forum administrators can post images. This is designed to stop inappropriate images being posted, and also lengthy download times if large images are posted.
Quote:
This appeared on the screen in Cmud after I closed my editor...
I can't really see much in that image - it is very small. Are you saying that after adding the XP themes to MUSHclient, then cMUD stops working properly? That sounds very strange.
Hmm. I thought he meant that its a known bug with the control, and that "any" application using the control would suffer the same fate, which is why it appears in cMud too.
There are also other places that look a bit strange, like the "tip of the day" dialog.
Right now, I am focusing on tackling the various graphical glitches I experience using MUSHclient, among them being 'proper' support for visual styles that does not have a lot of small artifacts of age showing through.
I created a theming branch on github, and have already fixed the bug regarding the notorious "tip of the day" dialog.
When testing without theming nothing seems to have broken either. To my knowledge, this problem was the final 'breaking' glitch that hampered usability - all others are purely cosmetic in nature. May I request testing and, assuming there are no issues, to have support for visual styles turned on by default?
I'll look into the proper compiler ifdefs, I am not sure which compiler introduced that flag however so it might take some figuring out.
Regarding the other glitch - weird, I am not getting that drawing glitch of the checkbox on Windows 7, making it kinda hard to test against that. I have however seen it mentioned elsewhere... let me see if I can remember where.
HBRUSH CTipDlg::OnCtlColor(CDC* pDC, CWnd* pWnd, UINT nCtlColor)
{
if (pWnd->GetDlgCtrlID() == IDC_TIPSTRING)
return (HBRUSH)GetStockObject(WHITE_BRUSH);
else if (pWnd->GetDlgCtrlID() == IDC_STARTUP)
return CDialog::OnCtlColor(pDC, pWnd, nCtlColor);
else if (nCtlColor == CTLCOLOR_STATIC)
/* Visual styles enabled causes the things we draw in our WM_PAINT
* to get cleared (and not redrawn) if we do not use a hollow brush here.
* Likely the default behaviour differs when using theming. -JW */
return (HBRUSH)GetStockObject(HOLLOW_BRUSH);
return CDialog::OnCtlColor(pDC, pWnd, nCtlColor);
}
I'll look into the proper compiler ifdefs, I am not sure which compiler introduced that flag however so it might take some figuring out.
What is it achieving? It looks on the face of it, that if you have the manifest file there, it is checking that you have the appropriate common dialog control DLL installed. Maybe some warning to delete the manifest file if the screen looks crappy?
Our fix amounts to the same thing, although I like mine more. I specified my fix by specifically checking for IDC_BULB and IDC_STATIC instead as those are the ones needing special treatment, leaving the default case to be clearly visible. (I had failed to recognize that apparently checkboxes are also considered static controls.)
The pragmas seem to be the recommended way to generate a manifest. I took them from a fresh MSVC project after I saw some website suggest to put them in the stdafx.h, and the site was right - my MSVC autogenerates such lines in the stdafx.h file by default.
You're completely right. I was too impatient to wait for yet another compile after I tested with and without the fixes, and removed the 'def' part there in my hurry. Nice catch, and fixed in my repo. :)
I made two more commits to my theming branch, both of which fix ugly graphical glitches in the world properties screen.
To my knowledge this concludes the last of the graphical glitches MUSHclient is exhibiting. If anyone knows of any other graphical glitches, feel free to point them out and I'll do about them what I can.
No stigma attached, but why aren't you using git merge or git pull for these changes? Personally, I trust git a little bit more than I trust copypasta.
According to a bit of debugging I just did with Twisol who couldn't get stuff to work, you did not fix it. Probably some git commit juggling that went wrong somehow.
No stigma attached, but why aren't you using git merge or git pull for these changes? Personally, I trust git a little bit more than I trust copypasta.
You may trust it more, but I have had some odd error messages from it when attempting just that. And when I see one or two line changes, it seems easier to just copy them than try to do a git fetch, git merge or git cherry-pick, and then check I got what I wanted and no more.
Worstje said:
According to a bit of debugging I just did with Twisol who couldn't get stuff to work, you did not fix it. Probably some git commit juggling that went wrong somehow.
Yes, well I fixed it and now it got put back. As you say, probably one of those commits did it.
And this is why I like to see what the commit does, not blindly type in "git merge 349823987542" and hope everything is how I want it.
And this is why I like to see what the commit does, not blindly type in "git merge 349823987542" and hope everything is how I want it.
Looking at the git-merge help file, I think you might want to try the --no-commit --stat parameters. That will apply the merge, yet not commit, and show a diff afterwards. If the diff isn't good enough that way, or you forget to specify it, you can probably be more effective using 'git diff --staged' which shows the changes that would be committed.
That'd make the command: git merge 349823987542 --no-commit --stat
Alternatively, you could save yourself some options, and look into the merge.stat configuration option.
