/museum/25anniv/hof/hof_main.htm
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Giannamore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 14:52
Subject: RE: OT: RE: GDI DLL Wrapper
> yeah, thats the one. ok, copying it down.
> the 8080 and 8086
>OK, I had definitely misinterpreted what the wParam and lParam
parameters
>in the message meant. I had assumed that the original stack
parameters
>going through the DDI interface had been either protected or copied
into
>protected memory, and that wParam and/or lP
Morton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: RE: GDI DLL Wrapper
>>I really wish when Microsoft made a 32 bit operating system it would use
32
>>bit components...
>remember;
>Windows; a 32 bit operating environ
>>I really wish when Microsoft made a 32 bit operating system it would use 32
>>bit components...
>remember;
>Windows; a 32 bit operating environment built on a 16 bit operating system
>for an 8 bit processor by a 2 bit company
>Or something like that
"A 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical s
: GDI DLL Wrapper
I really wish when Microsoft made a 32 bit operating system it would use 32
bit components...
-
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http
>void ReceiveArea(WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam, int& x, int& y, int& w, int&
>h)
>{
> x = (wParam>>4) & 0x0FFF;
> y = ((wParam & 0x000F)<<8) | ((lParam>>24) & 0x00FF);
> w = ((lParam>>12) & 0x0FFF);
> h = lParam & 0x0FFF;
>}
>
>and in 'DdiDlgProc(HWND hdlg, UINT uMsg, WPARA
At 03:56 PM 3/14/01 -, you wrote:
>The same way as VNC, I assume, or possibly just simple polling. Last time I
>looked, they were only faster than VNC under NT, so naturally that's all
>you'll hear about... ;)
RAdmin 2.0 and Remote-Anything 3.5 are both substantially faster than VNC
under Wi
Laboratory for Communications Engineering, Cambridge - Tel : 766513
AT&T Labs Cambridge, UK - Tel : 343000
- Original Message -
From: "Mac Reiter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:21 PM
Sub
At 10:46 AM 3/14/01 +0100, you wrote:
>To everyone who has the DDIWatch code you'll get more mileage by adding the
>following in ddiwatch.cpp
I wish to apologize to Mr. Adeney if the tone of my message offended. (the
term "bogus" is particularly regrettable...) I did not have the time to
proper
- Tel : 343000
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: GDI DLL Wrapper
> >> Win2000 (and maybe ME?) uses DDML, the Display Driver Management Layer,
at
>RAdmin just uses the DDML system, which just passes all graphics calls to
>multiple graphics drivers, one of which is a hooking one.
Any ideas how RAdmin works under 95/98?
_ /"\
Mac Reiter\ /ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Nomadics, Inc.
>> Win2000 (and maybe ME?) uses DDML, the Display Driver Management Layer, at
>> least according to Beta 3 of the 2000DDK. I have been unable to download
>> the 67MB final DDK to see if it is present in the final release.
>
>It's a feature present in NT from SP3 and upwards, I think. It's little
> For what it's worth, winddi.h and the other headers needed to make
> SetDDIHook work are from the 95/98 DDK, since this involves hooking calls
> destined for the device driver.
Aha. I wonder my Microsoft didn't tell me that when I asked? ;)
> Win2000 (and maybe ME?) uses DDML, the Display Dri
To everyone who has the DDIWatch code you'll get more mileage by adding the
following in ddiwatch.cpp
void ReceiveArea(WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam, int& x, int& y, int& w, int&
h)
{
x = (wParam>>4) & 0x0FFF;
y = ((wParam & 0x000F)<<8) | ((lParam>>24) & 0x00FF);
w = ((lPar
At 11:38 AM 3/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
>A gentleman just sent me source code to an application and a dll that hooks
>GDI this way and logs all of the DDI calls to a file. He included all
>source code to both the application and the DLL. Would you like the ZIPped
>archive of code and executable?
So would I.
Thomas
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:54
Subject: Re: GDI DLL Wrapper
> I would love to have it.
>
> Tom
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Mac Reiter wrote:
>
> > A gent
I would love to have it.
Tom
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Mac Reiter wrote:
> A gentleman just sent me source code to an application and a dll that hooks
> GDI this way and logs all of the DDI calls to a file. He included all
> source code to both the application and the DLL. Would you like the ZIPpe
A gentleman just sent me source code to an application and a dll that hooks
GDI this way and logs all of the DDI calls to a file. He included all
source code to both the application and the DLL. Would you like the ZIPped
archive of code and executable?
Mac
_ /"\
> >I asked Microsoft about why a header file for this was missing and they
> >said that it is a mistake in the SDK docs - there is no such API.
>
> It isn't part of the Win32 API. It is part of the Active Accessibility
> SDK, like I said.
Oh, I see. So you think the Active Accessibility SDK ver
In a message dated 3/10/2001 3:19:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Perhaps you are talking about DDML
"NT4 SP3 DDML
Introduction
Service Pack 3 for Windows NT 4.0 introduces new functionality called the
Display Driver Management Layer that allows installation of multiple
concurrent display dr
]
Subject: RE: GDI DLL Wrapper
>> Has anyone looked into SetDDIHook? It is part of the Active
Accessibility
>
>I asked Microsoft about why a header file for this was missing and they
>said that it is a mistake in the SDK docs - there is no such API.
It isn't part of the Win32
>> Has anyone looked into SetDDIHook? It is part of the Active Accessibility
>
>I asked Microsoft about why a header file for this was missing and they
>said that it is a mistake in the SDK docs - there is no such API.
It isn't part of the Win32 API. It is part of the Active Accessibility
SDK,
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Mac Reiter wrote:
> Has anyone looked into SetDDIHook? It is part of the Active Accessibility
> system, and allows you to route ALL GDI->device driver calls through a
> 16-bit DLL of your choice. The 16 bit part annoys me, but it would give
> you all the information you coul
Has anyone looked into SetDDIHook? It is part of the Active Accessibility
system, and allows you to route ALL GDI->device driver calls through a
16-bit DLL of your choice. The 16 bit part annoys me, but it would give
you all the information you could hope to need, and you could simply pass
on an
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Sharma, Shashi wrote:
> So, if I just send the drawing request(like drawline, BitBlt etc) with the
> bounding rectangle then WinVNC would be able to do the rest.
> I am intersted to know what would be the performance gains.
Considerable. WinVNC could completely avoid checki
AIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:15 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: GDI DLL Wrapper
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Sharma, Shashi wrote:
> Hi,
> I am interested in writing a Wrapper DLL over GDI in order to trap the
> graphics update. I am familiar with PE format
>If you can make the DLL only send data for functions that have been
>requested to send hook data, using a set of flag bits, then the idea
>sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how well it will work in practice,
>though. WinVNC is really just interested in knowing when an area of the
>display bitmap
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Sharma, Shashi wrote:
> Hi,
> I am interested in writing a Wrapper DLL over GDI in order to trap the
> graphics update. I am familiar with PE format and have patched few DLLs,
> however, I have little idea how will the WinVNC uses this information.
>
> I propose the followin
>I dont think they are handled even in the original WinVNC code. I have no
>idea about DirectX api but I think the same idea can be used by wrapping the
>appropriate DLL.
They are sorta handled, the same way everything else is handled. If you
GetDC(0), you have the device context for the screen
I agree too, I was just wondering if directdraw could be trapped too!
-Original Message-
From: Mac Reiter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 March 2001 15:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: GDI DLL Wrapper
At 03:13 PM 3/8/01 -, you wrote:
>What about non gdi upda
the WinVNC
-shashi
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 7:13 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: GDI DLL Wrapper
What about non gdi updates? Directdraw etc?
-Original Message-
From: Sharma, Shashi [mailto:[EMAIL
At 03:13 PM 3/8/01 -, you wrote:
>What about non gdi updates? Directdraw etc?
Personally, I don't care. If GDI updates could be trapped, WinVNC would
become multiple TIMES faster (200% or so, I would expect, given how well
Xvnc performs). WinVNC already supports per-application special flag
What about non gdi updates? Directdraw etc?
-Original Message-
From: Sharma, Shashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 March 2001 15:06
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: GDI DLL Wrapper
Hi,
I am interested in writing a Wrapper DLL over GDI in order to trap the
graphics update. I am fami
33 matches
Mail list logo
