wine-bugs May 2008

wine-bugs@winehq.org

2 participants
4586 discussions

[Bug 2467] starcraft doesn't display battle.net menus correctly
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2467 Vytautas <vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com --- Comment #62 from Vytautas <vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com> 2008-05-03 11:15:01 --- Category: Main > Games > Strategy Games > StarCraft > Demo 1.01 (download link included there ~20Mb) Could help for wine developers because it is probably the only shareware program which uses BNET. If you want to see bug start game and after loading press M then enter. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 2493] Multi-select listview: Shift-arrow up only selects top two items
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2493 --- Comment #8 from Robi Lampreht <robert_lampreht(a)t-2.net> 2008-05-03 09:41:13 --- Created an attachment (id=12668) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=12668) patch This patch solves the problem, but I don't know if it's the correct way. Tested on regedit. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 5764] Running FFXI leaves blank screen after accepting user agreement.
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5764 Sean D. Condon <pandora_xero(a)comcast.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pandora_xero(a)comcast.net --- Comment #9 from Sean D. Condon <pandora_xero(a)comcast.net> 2008-05-03 08:06:08 --- confirmed this bug still exists in 0.9.61, complete with the imm/ime infinite loop -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 3023] Orcad - "Place Part" never tries to put down a part
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3023 Matthias Bahlke <mrfuzzemz(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrfuzzemz(a)gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Matthias Bahlke <mrfuzzemz(a)gmail.com> 2008-05-03 08:03:58 --- I would like to add that while the place part fix works(commenting out and recompiling), it still will not allow the user to simulate a circuit once it is built. The pspice simulation configuration menus do not even show up in Orcad Capture. This is using Orcad PSPICE student edition 9.1 which is available to download free on-line. If there is a version that does work well with WINE (will properly simulate circuits built in Capture) do let us know. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 7187] WMI showstopper due to unimplemented function ole32.dll. CoSwitchCallContext
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7187 Vitaly Lipatov <lav(a)etersoft.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lav(a)etersoft.ru --- Comment #9 from Vitaly Lipatov <lav(a)etersoft.ru> 2008-05-03 06:57:46 --- CoSwitchCallContext still unimplemented in 0.9.61 Please resend patch with CoSwitchCallContext implementation. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 421] Implement a DIB engine
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421 Vytautas <vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com --- Comment #46 from Vytautas <vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com> 2008-05-03 06:07:22 --- I noticed that on 0.9.60 Starcraft: Brood war 1.15.2 speed is better on my PIII 600Mhz CPU. Now CPU load is ~91% so game is playable. Just when too much action like intense battle comes into screen lag appears. Still I want to remember to everyone that with windows 95 same situation is on PI 90Mhz CPU. But because I skipped some older wine versions and game itself got some updates it is hard to say anything more. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 2467] starcraft doesn't display battle.net menus correctly
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2467 --- Comment #61 from Vytautas <vytautas1987(a)yahoo.com> 2008-05-03 05:54:20 --- It's still an issue in 0.9.60. And I think the biggest one remaining for StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood war. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 5828] Command and Conquer Generals (Zero Hour) doesn' t change the mouse cursor from the default X mouse
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5828 Jesper <INCSlayer(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |INCSlayer(a)gmail.com --- Comment #46 from Jesper <INCSlayer(a)gmail.com> 2008-05-03 05:49:26 --- the patches dont work with wine 0.9.61 -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 124] Review of Wine Server Protocol
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 --- Comment #11 from Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> 2008-05-03 00:09:07 --- Alexandre said that the server requests should be reviewed and some entries re-arranged to make alignment rules not enlarge the request structure sizes instead. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 124] Review of Wine Server Protocol
by wine-bugs＠winehq.org 03 May '08

03 May '08

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |winehacker(a)gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> 2008-05-02 23:09:02 --- I'd like to see the x86-64 server request padding patch go in if there is still time as Winelib64 is partly working these days. See Greg van Geldorp's comments here http://oss.gse.nl/wine/ Allocate more space in server request structure I submitted a patch for this which was at first ignored. Some time later, a thread [http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2006-July/049811.html] was started on wine-devel about this patch. If I understand the argument correctly, Alexandre says the patch wastes memory. I'm not sure I understand that, it's not like there are thousands or even hundreds of these structures allocated at the same time. In fact, I ran some tests and found the maximum number of request structures allocated at the same time to be 3. So the maximum amount of memory saved would be 3 * 32 = 96 bytes of stack space, on Wine64 only (no waste on Wine32). To conserve that amount, extra code would need to be added for more complicated packing and unpacking. My guess is that the code to do that would take up more than 96 bytes, making this a nett loss. In the mean time, Pavel Roskin submitted a slightly better version: Patch [http://oss.gse.nl/wine/Win64-needs-more-space.txt] -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-bugs May 2008