Re: Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:26:43PM +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
> +    MESSAGE("**********************************************************************");
> +    MESSAGE("* Native DirectDraw is not supported, please remove it and try again *");
> +    MESSAGE("**********************************************************************");
> For such a big message it's still rather unclear/misleading.

What about something similar to:
*************** Native DirectDraw is not supported by Wine! ***************
****** Please disable loading of any native DDraw DLLs and try again ******

Andreas Mohr

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Ivan Leo Puoti]

Andreas Mohr wrote:
> What about something similar to:
> *************** Native DirectDraw is not supported by Wine! ***************
> ****** Please disable loading of any native DDraw DLLs and try again ******
> IMHO we should have a messagebox for that.

Ivan.

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Robert Shearman]

Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
> Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > What about something similar to:
> > *************** Native DirectDraw is not supported by Wine! 
> > ***************
> > ****** Please disable loading of any native DDraw DLLs and try again 
> > ******
>
> IMHO we should have a messagebox for that.

I agree. Not everyone looks at to their console for messages when 
running apps.

Rob

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Mike Hearn]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:54:15 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
> I agree. Not everyone looks at to their console for messages when 
> running apps.

There are a whole class of messages like that which *should* be message
boxes but aren't for whatever reason. In this case we'd have to
LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress user32. We can do this, if Alexandre thinks
it'd be preferable - AJ?

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Lars Segerlund]

There is another category of users who doesn't like message boxes, perhaps an option
 between them which defaults to message boxes ?

 / Lars Segerlund.


On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:58:15 +0000
Mike Hearn <mike(a)navi.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:54:15 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
> > I agree. Not everyone looks at to their console for messages when 
> > running apps.
>
> There are a whole class of messages like that which *should* be message
> boxes but aren't for whatever reason. In this case we'd have to
> LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress user32. We can do this, if Alexandre thinks
> it'd be preferable - AJ?

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Alexandre Julliard]

Mike Hearn <mike(a)navi.cx> writes:
> There are a whole class of messages like that which *should* be message
> boxes but aren't for whatever reason. In this case we'd have to
> LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress user32. We can do this, if Alexandre thinks
> it'd be preferable - AJ?

Messages that the user needs to see have to be a message box, yes. But
really if we are doing things right there shouldn't be any need for
such messages. In this specific case I'd suggest letting winecfg take
care of it, by not offering the ddraw dlls in the load order config,
and/or issuing a warning when they are set to native.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Mike Hearn]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:15:04 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Messages that the user needs to see have to be a message box, yes. But
> really if we are doing things right there shouldn't be any need for
> such messages. In this specific case I'd suggest letting winecfg take
> care of it, by not offering the ddraw dlls in the load order config,
> and/or issuing a warning when they are set to native.

Maybe we should just extend the blacklist in the code, some DLLs will
never work as native like ntdll so we just never try and load them.
Probably that'd be better from a usability POV than any warning.

thanks -mike

Warn users who attempt to use native DirectDraw

[Alexandre Julliard]

Mike Hearn <mike(a)navi.cx> writes:
> Maybe we should just extend the blacklist in the code, some DLLs will
> never work as native like ntdll so we just never try and load them.
> Probably that'd be better from a usability POV than any warning.

That's not what the blacklist does, it just provides defaults, so you
still need a warning. I don't think we want to completely disable the
possibility of changing the loadorder of system dlls, we just want to
make it clear that it's a bad idea if you don't know what you are
doing.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org