f



Root Window & Windows within Windows

Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with the 
root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to the root 
window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a task bar.  The 
only ability I am aware of that programmers have to add content to the root 
window (aside from replacing explorer.exe), is with Active Desktop.

I feel that active desktop should be a program we can write ourselves.  We 
should be able to write our own programs that are drawn directly to the 
root window, just like active desktop windows are.  Even when you replace 
explorer.exe you don't have the native ability to create your own program 
which could compete with microsofts active desktop program which is 
integrated into the OS.  Please tell me if I am wrong about that.

One solution to this problem is a window within a window.  If you take 
advantage of openGL and graphic acceleration you can draw a window and then 
render your own windows inside of it.  Windows does not natively give you 
the ability to open windows inside of your windows.  Of course it will let 
you open small window areas inside of your application that you can then 
use as text boxes or whatever.  It will not let you open up a whole new 
program as a window inside of your window.

If windows let us open new windows inside of our windows, or even to write 
applications that could function directly on the root window (which is the 
only window allowed to have windows inside of it) they would lose their 
monopoly on their own OS.  We would see a million programs that eliminated 
the need for anything resembling explorer.exe.  One program could have all 
the programs you used already opened inside it.  You could then minimize 
those programs inside of that window, and open up new programs from that 
window.  Surely someone would find a better way of managing your programs 
and files with a independent application than microsoft offers us with 
explorer.exe.

Microsofts answer is the task bar and the start menu... as well as a 
useless desktop filled with icons like any other folder is.  If we could 
really run a program on the root window, I would get rid of the start menu 
and get rid of the icons.  I would replace it with a browser, like mozilla.

Active Desktop does not give you the full functionality of internet 
explorer, and of course doesn't offer you the chance to use Mozilla as your 
active desktop.  If we were allowed to make our browsers into our root 
windows,  no one would ever think of using the old shell (explorer.exe) 
again. 

Just take a look at this webpage to see how silly the idea of not being 
allowed to write to the root window really is, or being able to create our 
own equivalents to the root window with windows inside of windows:

http://robin.sourceforge.net/


If anyone has any information on running programs from the root window or 
opening up new programs inside of children of the root window... even by 
using OpenGL..  please let me know.
0
Gremlin
11/24/2004 3:25:06 AM
comp.os.programmer.win32 14523 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

7 Replies
1239 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 36

Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com>  wrote :

>Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with the 
>root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to the root 
>window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a task bar.  The 
>only ability I am aware of that programmers have to add content to the root 
>window (aside from replacing explorer.exe), is with Active Desktop.

Why not just replace explorer.exe ?

The whole point is that that set of windows (theres more than one, in a
series of layers IIRC) belong to explorer.exe, you aren't supposed to be
able to mess with them.  


>I feel that active desktop should be a program we can write ourselves.  We 
>should be able to write our own programs that are drawn directly to the 
>root window, just like active desktop windows are.  

Erm, you could code an ActiveDesktop application, its basically 
just D/HTML content, which means you can wrap it round any of 
the other MS technolgies you have handy (ActiveX, D/COM/+, various
flavours of scripting, etc)

It would seem that the easiest way to do this is just to create a
stadard bit 'o web content, and then create a CDF file for it,
and have it added to the Active Desktop.

http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/active2.shtml

Alternatively you can brave the Shell API, and programmatically
add/remove items of your own design to/from the Active Desktop
http://snipurl.com/av5y (MSDN dox on Shell Programming)

>Even when you replace 
>explorer.exe you don't have the native ability 

The wha ?

>to create your own program 
>which could compete with microsofts active desktop program which is 
>integrated into the OS.  Please tell me if I am wrong about that.

I'm not sure that wrong is the word I'd use. But have a look at these

http://www.litestep.net/ complete GUI replacement including desktop
                         (requires registration, somewhat irriatingly)

http://www.stardock.com/products/desktopx/ DeskTopX - commercial GUI
                                           twiddling

Both of which exhibit the kind of features you mention


I dont quite see why you say you dont have the 'native' ability
to do this, there isn't anything stopping you from coding an
AD replacement, if you have enough time, sandwiches, coffe and
patience with MS documentation.


>One solution to this problem is a window within a window.  If you take 
>advantage of openGL and graphic acceleration you can draw a window and then 
>render your own windows inside of it.  Windows does not natively give you 
>the ability to open windows inside of your windows.  

MDI ?



>Of course it will let 
>you open small window areas inside of your application that you can then 
>use as text boxes or whatever.  

Each of those is considered to *be* a window, and has a window handle 
(hWnd) (AFAIK)


>It will not let you open up a whole new program as a window inside of 
>your window.

Because your application window has no way to interact properly with 
the application you are trying to run 'inside' it, which will have 
been created to work with the windows GUI subsystem.

You could create this kind of functionality if you really wanted to,
using some nasty combinations of scripting and interface defintion, 
but since you can already add dynamic application content to the Active
Desktop, why would you go to all the trouble ?

(unless you just *really* want to, obviously '-)


>If windows let us open new windows inside of our windows, or even to write 
>applications that could function directly on the root window (which is the 
>only window allowed to have windows inside of it) they would lose their 
>monopoly on their own OS.  

GUI, the OS would still be there.


>We would see a million programs that eliminated 
>the need for anything resembling explorer.exe.  One program could have all 
>the programs you used already opened inside it.  

Like explorer.exe does ?


>You could then minimize those programs inside of that window, and open 
>up new programs from that window.  

Like explorer.exe ?


>Surely someone would find a better way 
>of managing your programs and files with a independent application than 
>microsoft offers us with explorer.exe.

http://freeware.intrastar.net/filemanagers.htm ?


>Microsofts answer is the task bar and the start menu... as well as a 
>useless desktop filled with icons like any other folder is.  If we could 
>really run a program on the root window, I would get rid of the start menu 
>and get rid of the icons.  I would replace it with a browser, like mozilla.

Why ? What if you want to do something other than browse the web ?


>Active Desktop does not give you the full functionality of internet 
>explorer, 

Er, thats what Internet Explorer is for innit ? Its not supposed to 
be a fully fledged browser, (although AFAIK it is a WebBrowser class)
its a DESKTOP.


>and of course doesn't offer you the chance to use Mozilla as your 
>active desktop.  

No, but there isnt anything stopping you from replacing the
registry entry for the shell with mozilla.exe.  Just make sure 
you know how to edit your registry via mozilla before you do it.

XP, NT et al
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon 
"Shell"="someoldtoss.exe"

9x
In c:\windows\system.ini : SHELL = "someoldtoss.exe"


>If we were allowed to make our browsers into our root 
>windows,  no one would ever think of using the old shell (explorer.exe) 
>again. 

I'm pretty sure they would you know, not eveyone wants to look at 
a browser all day.


>Just take a look at this webpage to see how silly the idea of not being 
>allowed to write to the root window really is, or being able to create our 
>own equivalents to the root window with windows inside of windows:
>
>http://robin.sourceforge.net/


So, I remove the MS interface, install a browser as my shell, and then for
some odd reason, I run another GUI inside that browser that mimics the GUI
I've just removed ?

Why ?????


>If anyone has any information on running programs from the root window or 
>opening up new programs inside of children of the root window... even by 
>using OpenGL..  please let me know.

AFAIK you can scribble all over any window you can get the hWnd for,
and you can get the hWnd of any window you fancy using the FindWindow 
API call (assuming you know what its called, and what class it is, 
otherwise you will have to do the EnumWindows thang)

When you create a new window programmatically, using the 
CreateWindow API call, you can specify the hWnd for a parent 
window, I dont know if this works on your "root" window,
because I've never tried.

OTOH you could just find out how Active Desktop does it, and mimic it, 
but then, as I said, why not just use an Active Desktop app ?

I don't know if this helps at all.


--
/------------------------------------------------------------\
| "If I wanted a capital letter, I'd have f***ing TYPED a    |
|  capital letter "                                          |
| - Microsoft Office Human Interface Research Team,          |
|    unpublished memo                                        |
\------------------------------------------------------------/
0
Lensman
11/24/2004 11:45:10 AM
Lensman <putin@kremvax.ru> wrote in
news:6vn8q0leoo68n1j72k6cldeh4o24lf143m@4ax.com: 

> Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com>  wrote :
> 
>>Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with
>>the root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to
>>the root window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a task
>>bar.  The only ability I am aware of that programmers have to add
>>content to the root window (aside from replacing explorer.exe), is
>>with Active Desktop. 
> 
> Why not just replace explorer.exe ?

Your not going to be able to code anything that competes with active 
desktop by replacing explorer.exe

> The whole point is that that set of windows (theres more than one, in
> a series of layers IIRC) belong to explorer.exe, you aren't supposed
> to be able to mess with them.  
 
There is one root window, which explorer.exe which is just a fancy file 
manager, dumps icons onto like a folder and draws a taskbar on top of.
 
>>I feel that active desktop should be a program we can write ourselves.
>> We should be able to write our own programs that are drawn directly
>>to the root window, just like active desktop windows are.  
> 
> Erm, you could code an ActiveDesktop application, its basically 
> just D/HTML content, which means you can wrap it round any of 
> the other MS technolgies you have handy (ActiveX, D/COM/+, various
> flavours of scripting, etc)

Coding for active desktop is never going to give you the full functionality 
of a web browser.

> It would seem that the easiest way to do this is just to create a
> stadard bit 'o web content, and then create a CDF file for it,
> and have it added to the Active Desktop.
> 
> http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/active2.shtml
> 
> Alternatively you can brave the Shell API, and programmatically
> add/remove items of your own design to/from the Active Desktop
> http://snipurl.com/av5y (MSDN dox on Shell Programming)
> 

Active desktop will never be a fully featured web browser no matter how you 
tinker with it. Sorry.

>>Even when you replace 
>>explorer.exe you don't have the native ability 
> 
> The wha ?

You could finish reading the sentence.

>>to create your own program 
>>which could compete with microsofts active desktop program which is 
>>integrated into the OS.  Please tell me if I am wrong about that.
> 
> I'm not sure that wrong is the word I'd use. But have a look at these
> 
> http://www.litestep.net/ complete GUI replacement including desktop
>                          (requires registration, somewhat irriatingly)
> 
> http://www.stardock.com/products/desktopx/ DeskTopX - commercial GUI
>                                            twiddling
> 
> Both of which exhibit the kind of features you mention

Litestep does not give you anything that competes with active desktop.. For 
a long time that program could not even use the native active desktop that 
windows supports.  It does allow you to use active desktop now for what it 
is but nothing more.  Desktopx doesn't give you the ability to code your 
own active desktop replacements either.. Sorry buddy.  Can either of these 
programs give you a fully functional browser as your active desktop? No!

> 
> I dont quite see why you say you dont have the 'native' ability
> to do this, there isn't anything stopping you from coding an
> AD replacement, if you have enough time, sandwiches, coffe and
> patience with MS documentation.

I think you are wrong about that...  Please, show me something to change my 
mind.
 
>>One solution to this problem is a window within a window.  If you take
>>advantage of openGL and graphic acceleration you can draw a window and
>>then render your own windows inside of it.  Windows does not natively
>>give you the ability to open windows inside of your windows.  
> 
> MDI ?
> 

No sorry.
 
> 
>>Of course it will let 
>>you open small window areas inside of your application that you can
>>then use as text boxes or whatever.  
> 
> Each of those is considered to *be* a window, and has a window handle 
> (hWnd) (AFAIK)
> 
> 
>>It will not let you open up a whole new program as a window inside of 
>>your window.
> 
> Because your application window has no way to interact properly with 
> the application you are trying to run 'inside' it, which will have 
> been created to work with the windows GUI subsystem.
> 
> You could create this kind of functionality if you really wanted to,
> using some nasty combinations of scripting and interface defintion, 
> but since you can already add dynamic application content to the
> Active Desktop, why would you go to all the trouble ?

Active desktop does not allow you to open up new programs...  I also doubt 
you would have any luck opening up a new window inside of an existing 
program.  You say you can with a nasty combination of scripting and 
interface definition, but I don't see any evidence of that.
 
> 
>>If windows let us open new windows inside of our windows, or even to
>>write applications that could function directly on the root window
>>(which is the only window allowed to have windows inside of it) they
>>would lose their monopoly on their own OS.  
> 
> GUI, the OS would still be there.

That wasn't a technical statement.
> 
>>We would see a million programs that eliminated 
>>the need for anything resembling explorer.exe.  One program could have
>>all the programs you used already opened inside it.  
> 
> Like explorer.exe does ?

Explorer.exe doesn't open programs inside of it.  It just gives you an 
interface that lets you open up programs inside of the root window.  If you 
replace the shell entry in system.ini or the registry with something other 
than explorer.exe the program will open up just as it does without 
explorer.exe. 
 
>>You could then minimize those programs inside of that window, and open
>>up new programs from that window.  
> 
> Like explorer.exe ?

No!  Explorer.exe is not a window that contains anything!  It just places 
icons and a task bar onto the root window.. and gives you a file manager!
Why do you say otherwise?
 
>>Surely someone would find a better way 
>>of managing your programs and files with a independent application
>>than microsoft offers us with explorer.exe.
> 
> http://freeware.intrastar.net/filemanagers.htm ?

I am not talking about file managers in this post!
 
>>Microsofts answer is the task bar and the start menu... as well as a 
>>useless desktop filled with icons like any other folder is.  If we
>>could really run a program on the root window, I would get rid of the
>>start menu and get rid of the icons.  I would replace it with a
>>browser, like mozilla. 
> 
> Why ? What if you want to do something other than browse the web ?

A web browser can do a lot more than browse the web... see below.
 
>>Active Desktop does not give you the full functionality of internet 
>>explorer, 
> 
> Er, thats what Internet Explorer is for innit ? Its not supposed to 
> be a fully fledged browser, (although AFAIK it is a WebBrowser class)
> its a DESKTOP.

Active Desktop pretends to be a web browser...  it would be an obvious 
improvement if it was a fully fledged web browser.
 
>>and of course doesn't offer you the chance to use Mozilla as your 
>>active desktop.  
> 
> No, but there isnt anything stopping you from replacing the
> registry entry for the shell with mozilla.exe.  Just make sure 
> you know how to edit your registry via mozilla before you do it.
> 

If you replace explorer.exe with mozilla, all that will happen is a mozilla 
window will open just as it does when you have explorer.exe.. Nothing 
amazing about that.  Why do you bring that up?

>>If we were allowed to make our browsers into our root 
>>windows,  no one would ever think of using the old shell
>>(explorer.exe) again. 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they would you know, not eveyone wants to look at 
> a browser all day.

That depends what is inside the browser.  A browser window could contian 
everything that your usual desktop does.  Do you like to look at that all 
day?

>>Just take a look at this webpage to see how silly the idea of not
>>being allowed to write to the root window really is, or being able to
>>create our own equivalents to the root window with windows inside of
>>windows: 
>>
>>http://robin.sourceforge.net/
> 
> 
> So, I remove the MS interface, install a browser as my shell, and then
> for some odd reason, I run another GUI inside that browser that mimics
> the GUI I've just removed ?
> 
> Why ?????

Well you just said you don't want to look at a browser window all day.  In 
that webpage the browser window is the same as your window GUI..  It shows 
how dynamic a browser window really is.  You could replace the GUI in the 
browser with something entirely origonal and much more functional than 
mimicking microsofts explorer.exe
 
>>If anyone has any information on running programs from the root window
>>or opening up new programs inside of children of the root window...
>>even by using OpenGL..  please let me know.
> 
> AFAIK you can scribble all over any window you can get the hWnd for,
> and you can get the hWnd of any window you fancy using the FindWindow 
> API call (assuming you know what its called, and what class it is, 
> otherwise you will have to do the EnumWindows thang)

Not the root window.

> When you create a new window programmatically, using the 
> CreateWindow API call, you can specify the hWnd for a parent 
> window, I dont know if this works on your "root" window,
> because I've never tried.

No it doesnt' work for the root window.

> OTOH you could just find out how Active Desktop does it, and mimic it,
> but then, as I said, why not just use an Active Desktop app ?

An active desktop app will never be a fully featured web browser... and I 
seriously doubt you know what your talking about when you say you can code 
your own replacement for active desktop.  Why has no one does this, if that 
is indeed the case?  Show me something that supports your statements 
please...

> I don't know if this helps at all.
> 

Not really, no.

> --
> /------------------------------------------------------------\
>| "If I wanted a capital letter, I'd have f***ing TYPED a    |
>|  capital letter "                                          |
>| - Microsoft Office Human Interface Research Team,          |
>|    unpublished memo                                        |
> \------------------------------------------------------------/
> 

0
Gremlin
11/24/2004 9:00:07 PM
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:25:06 +0000, Gremlin wrote:

> Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with the 
> root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to the root 
> window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a task bar.  The 
> only ability I am aware of that programmers have to add content to the root 
> window (aside from replacing explorer.exe), is with Active Desktop.
> 

Does setting a global hook and subclassing the root window give you what
you want?

- Jay

0
Jay
11/24/2004 9:16:48 PM
Gremlin wrote:

> Lensman <putin@kremvax.ru> wrote in
> news:6vn8q0leoo68n1j72k6cldeh4o24lf143m@4ax.com: 
> 
> 
>>Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com>  wrote :
[snip]
>>Why not just replace explorer.exe ?
> 
> 
> Your not going to be able to code anything that competes with active 
> desktop by replacing explorer.exe

i'm afraid i misunderstand the entire point of what you're trying to do. 
you want to trash three quarters of what makes windows windows, build 
your own replacement which unless you have a seriously talented and 
quite powerful development team and about 12 months to kill is going to 
be every bit as buggy, and then you're going to be left with a buggy 
shell/window manager replacement over top of a buggy windows HAL/kernel 
- for what purpose?

if you're going to piss away so much of the operating system why don't 
you just lose the whole lot and start from scratch completely?

fwaggle
0
fwaggle
11/24/2004 9:30:02 PM
Jay Nabonne <jay@rightagainBYTEME.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.24.21.16.34.250000@rightagainBYTEME.com: 

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:25:06 +0000, Gremlin wrote:
> 
>> Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with
>> the root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to
>> the root window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a
>> task bar.  The only ability I am aware of that programmers have to
>> add content to the root window (aside from replacing explorer.exe),
>> is with Active Desktop. 
>> 
> 
> Does setting a global hook and subclassing the root window give you
> what you want?
> 
> - Jay
> 
> 

This is what I'm working on right now:

void CFoolDlg::OnWindowPosChanging(WINDOWPOS* lpwndpos){
lpwndpos>hwndInsertAfter=HWND_BOTTOM;
CDialog::OnWindowPosChanging(lpwndpos);
}

Something like this should, if compiled into the mozilla source, cause 
mozilla to always stay at the bottom of the z-index.  If we were to use the 
mozilla full screen extension, or make it full screen another way.. We 
would have something that would replace the desktop wallpaper and icons, as 
long as it wasn't minimized...  That's where I am right now, and perhaps 
will replace explorer.exe as the shell with a file to launch this new 
version of mozilla along with apache and mysql.

Any feedback on these ideas?  It is deffinitly a hack that just dances 
around the problem the same as using OpenGL to render windows inside of 
windows.
0
Gremlin
11/24/2004 11:16:59 PM
Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com>  wrote :

>Jay Nabonne <jay@rightagainBYTEME.com> wrote in
>news:pan.2004.11.24.21.16.34.250000@rightagainBYTEME.com: 
>
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:25:06 +0000, Gremlin wrote:
>> 
>>> Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with
>>> the root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to
>>> the root window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a
>>> task bar.  The only ability I am aware of that programmers have to
>>> add content to the root window (aside from replacing explorer.exe),
>>> is with Active Desktop. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Does setting a global hook and subclassing the root window give you
>> what you want?
>> 
>> - Jay
>> 
>> 
>
>This is what I'm working on right now:
>
>void CFoolDlg::OnWindowPosChanging(WINDOWPOS* lpwndpos){
>lpwndpos>hwndInsertAfter=HWND_BOTTOM;
>CDialog::OnWindowPosChanging(lpwndpos);
>}
>
>Something like this should, if compiled into the mozilla source, cause 
>mozilla to always stay at the bottom of the z-index.  If we were to use the 
>mozilla full screen extension, or make it full screen another way.. We 
>would have something that would replace the desktop wallpaper and icons, as 
>long as it wasn't minimized...  


E.G not at all ?


>That's where I am right now, and perhaps 
>will replace explorer.exe as the shell with a file to launch this new 
>version of mozilla along with apache and mysql.
>
>Any feedback on these ideas?  It is deffinitly a hack that just dances 
>around the problem the same as using OpenGL to render windows inside of 
>windows.

0
Lensman
11/25/2004 9:26:46 AM
Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com>  wrote :

>Lensman <putin@kremvax.ru> wrote in
>news:6vn8q0leoo68n1j72k6cldeh4o24lf143m@4ax.com: 
>
>> Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com>  wrote :
>> 
>>>Even (on 98) if you replace the shell explorer.exe you are left with
>>>the root window.  Explorer.exe does a good job of adding content to
>>>the root window.  It places icons on your desktop and gives you a task
>>>bar.  The only ability I am aware of that programmers have to add
>>>content to the root window (aside from replacing explorer.exe), is
>>>with Active Desktop. 
>> 
>> Why not just replace explorer.exe ?
>
>Your not going to be able to code anything that competes with active 
>desktop by replacing explorer.exe


That statement is totally illogical, *of course* you can, think it 
through.  Thats like saying if you take the engine out of that car and put
a new on in it will never be an engine.

You might not have sufficent faith in your own coding ability that you
think *you* could never replace active desktop, thats your problem,
and just because you think something is hard, doesn't mean others
can't do it.  MS did, for a start, and they are hardly the most
sophisticated people in the world when it coems to software development.


>> The whole point is that that set of windows (theres more than one, in
>> a series of layers IIRC) belong to explorer.exe, you aren't supposed
>> to be able to mess with them.  

>There is one root window, which explorer.exe which is just a fancy file 
>manager, dumps icons onto like a folder and draws a taskbar on top of.

Again, I would point out that in fact there is *not* one root window,
I strongly suggest you read the appropriate MSDN dox, which describe 
the layers of windows that go to make up the desktop and active desktop.
 

>>>I feel that active desktop should be a program we can write ourselves.
>>> We should be able to write our own programs that are drawn directly
>>>to the root window, just like active desktop windows are.  
>> 
>> Erm, you could code an ActiveDesktop application, its basically 
>> just D/HTML content, which means you can wrap it round any of 
>> the other MS technolgies you have handy (ActiveX, D/COM/+, various
>> flavours of scripting, etc)
>
>Coding for active desktop is never going to give you the full functionality 
>of a web browser.

Perhaps you might try before making such a statement ?

I can code a web browser as an ActiveX, or just use an existing one,
or just wrap an explorer subclass in one, then add it to the active 
desktop with its dimensions set to fill the whole screen.


>> It would seem that the easiest way to do this is just to create a
>> stadard bit 'o web content, and then create a CDF file for it,
>> and have it added to the Active Desktop.
>> 
>> http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/active2.shtml
>> 
>> Alternatively you can brave the Shell API, and programmatically
>> add/remove items of your own design to/from the Active Desktop
>> http://snipurl.com/av5y (MSDN dox on Shell Programming)
>> 
>
>Active desktop will never be a fully featured web browser no matter how you 
>tinker with it. Sorry.

That's what I tried to tell *you* below, as you would have known, if you 
and read the whole post before loosing your wad and hitting that 
follow up button.


>>>Even when you replace 
>>>explorer.exe you don't have the native ability 
>> 
>> The wha ?
>
>You could finish reading the sentence.

I did, define "native", suprise me.


>>>to create your own program 
>>>which could compete with microsofts active desktop program which is 
>>>integrated into the OS.  Please tell me if I am wrong about that.
>> 
>> I'm not sure that wrong is the word I'd use. But have a look at these
>> 
>> http://www.litestep.net/ complete GUI replacement including desktop
>>                          (requires registration, somewhat irriatingly)
>> 
>> http://www.stardock.com/products/desktopx/ DeskTopX - commercial GUI
>>                                            twiddling
>> 
>> Both of which exhibit the kind of features you mention
>
>Litestep does not give you anything that competes with active desktop.. For 
>a long time that program could not even use the native active desktop that 
>windows supports.  It does allow you to use active desktop now for what it 
>is but nothing more.  Desktopx doesn't give you the ability to code your 
>own active desktop replacements either.. Sorry buddy.  Can either of these 
>programs give you a fully functional browser as your active desktop? No!


I see you have done no more than look at the first page of each, DeskTopX
gives you the development environment to do exactly that.



>> 
>> I dont quite see why you say you dont have the 'native' ability
>> to do this, there isn't anything stopping you from coding an
>> AD replacement, if you have enough time, sandwiches, coffe and
>> patience with MS documentation.
>
>I think you are wrong about that...  Please, show me something to change my 
>mind.
> 
>>>One solution to this problem is a window within a window.  If you take
>>>advantage of openGL and graphic acceleration you can draw a window and
>>>then render your own windows inside of it.  Windows does not natively
>>>give you the ability to open windows inside of your windows.  
>> 
>> MDI ?
>> 
>
>No sorry.


Yes sorry.  It might not fit with your odd desire to have Mozilla open
inside every other window, but it very much does allow windows to opened
inside windows, that being ther whole fucking point of its existence.  



>> 
>>>Of course it will let 
>>>you open small window areas inside of your application that you can
>>>then use as text boxes or whatever.  
>> 
>> Each of those is considered to *be* a window, and has a window handle 
>> (hWnd) (AFAIK)
>> 
>> 
>>>It will not let you open up a whole new program as a window inside of 
>>>your window.
>> 
>> Because your application window has no way to interact properly with 
>> the application you are trying to run 'inside' it, which will have 
>> been created to work with the windows GUI subsystem.
>> 
>> You could create this kind of functionality if you really wanted to,
>> using some nasty combinations of scripting and interface defintion, 
>> but since you can already add dynamic application content to the
>> Active Desktop, why would you go to all the trouble ?
>
>Active desktop does not allow you to open up new programs...  

Wrong again sherlock, they just have to be the RIGHT KIND of 
programs.  If you had mozilla as an ActiveX control you could add it to the
active desktop.  


>I also doubt 
>you would have any luck opening up a new window inside of an existing 
>program.  You say you can with a nasty combination of scripting and 
>interface definition, but I don't see any evidence of that.

Er, Active Desktop not a rather large clue then ? 


 
>>>If windows let us open new windows inside of our windows, or even to
>>>write applications that could function directly on the root window
>>>(which is the only window allowed to have windows inside of it) 

That is still inocrrect, no matter how many times you repeat it.  
Right now, I have VC++ open, there are multiple windows all 
contained inside one window.  I'll remind you again that this is 
called MDI, and is a standard interface feature within windows.

I will also remind you that each control within each window is just 
a window to windows.  Thats why its called "windows".


>they
>>>would lose their monopoly on their own OS.  
>> 
>> GUI, the OS would still be there.
>
>That wasn't a technical statement.

Why not, this is supposedly a technical post ?


>>>We would see a million programs that eliminated 
>>>the need for anything resembling explorer.exe.  One program could have
>>>all the programs you used already opened inside it.  
>> 
>> Like explorer.exe does ?
>
>Explorer.exe doesn't open programs inside of it.  It just gives you an 
>interface that lets you open up programs inside of the root window.  If you 
>replace the shell entry in system.ini or the registry with something other 
>than explorer.exe the program will open up just as it does without 
>explorer.exe. 

Not if you code it to do the same things via the graphical subsystem,
that Explorer.exe does.  You've never done this before have you ? Replaced
the shell with one of your own design ?


>>>You could then minimize those programs inside of that window, and open
>>>up new programs from that window.  
>> 
>> Like explorer.exe ?
>
>No!  Explorer.exe is not a window that contains anything!  It just places 
>icons and a task bar onto the root window.. and gives you a file manager!
>Why do you say otherwise?

Sigh.  Which process owns that window ? And again, there are LAYERS of
windows. Read The Fucking Manual


>>>Surely someone would find a better way 
>>>of managing your programs and files with a independent application
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>than microsoft offers us with explorer.exe.
>> 
>> http://freeware.intrastar.net/filemanagers.htm ?
>
>I am not talking about file managers in this post!

"better way of managing your programs and files with a independent
application"  sounds like talking about file managers to me.

If your vocabulary is insufficent to describe your problem space, consult
your local documentation for how to have it upgraded.


>>>Microsofts answer is the task bar and the start menu... as well as a 
>>>useless desktop filled with icons like any other folder is.  If we
>>>could really run a program on the root window, I would get rid of the
>>>start menu and get rid of the icons.  I would replace it with a
>>>browser, like mozilla. 
>> 
>> Why ? What if you want to do something other than browse the web ?
>
>A web browser can do a lot more than browse the web... see below.

Sigh.  I did see below, and my comments about its total redundancy still
stand.


>>>Active Desktop does not give you the full functionality of internet 
>>>explorer, 
>> 
>> Er, thats what Internet Explorer is for innit ? Its not supposed to 
>> be a fully fledged browser, (although AFAIK it is a WebBrowser class)
>> its a DESKTOP.
>
>Active Desktop pretends to be a web browser...  it would be an obvious 
>improvement if it was a fully fledged web browser.

1) How does it "pretend to be a web browser"
2) ...obvious improvement *IN YOUR OPINION*, which you can see is not 
   shared by everyone

>>>and of course doesn't offer you the chance to use Mozilla as your 
>>>active desktop.  
>> 
>> No, but there isnt anything stopping you from replacing the
>> registry entry for the shell with mozilla.exe.  Just make sure 
>> you know how to edit your registry via mozilla before you do it.
>> 
>
>If you replace explorer.exe with mozilla, all that will happen is a mozilla 
>window will open just as it does when you have explorer.exe.. Nothing 
>amazing about that.  Why do you bring that up?

Because its the most obvious answer, and it is not evident from your
somewhat febrile (look it up) ramblings that you have even considered
anything so simple as merely replacing the shell.

Additionally, since you are going to be doing everything through your
browser, you can just set it to full screen and achieve the same effect.



>>>If we were allowed to make our browsers into our root 
>>>windows,  no one would ever think of using the old shell
>>>(explorer.exe) again. 
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure they would you know, not eveyone wants to look at 
>> a browser all day.
>
>That depends what is inside the browser.  A browser window could contian 
>everything that your usual desktop does.  

Then why dont I just use the Desktop ?


>Do you like to look at that all day?

No, I usally look at the dozen or so APPLICATIONS that I have open 
over the top of my desktop, dickhead.


>>>Just take a look at this webpage to see how silly the idea of not
>>>being allowed to write to the root window really is, or being able to
>>>create our own equivalents to the root window with windows inside of
>>>windows: 
>>>
>>>http://robin.sourceforge.net/
>> 
>> 
>> So, I remove the MS interface, install a browser as my shell, and then
>> for some odd reason, I run another GUI inside that browser that mimics
>> the GUI I've just removed ?
>> 
>> Why ?????
>
>Well you just said you don't want to look at a browser window all day.  In 
>that webpage the browser window is the same as your window GUI..  

Right, read that back to yourself again slowly when you've had less coffe,
you want me to a) remove my windows GUI, b) replace it with mozilla and
then c) recreate an exactly simmilar GUI that is going to be at least three
layers of abstraction, and at least that many layers of contained code away
from where I started JUST TO ACHIEVE EXCACTLY THE SAME EFFECT I STARTED
WITH.

You may think this will provide acceptable system performance, but I can
assure you it won't.


>It shows how dynamic a browser window really is.  

Its 2004, we all fucking know how dynamic a browser window really is.
The main exceptions being you and hatter, it would seem.


>You could replace the GUI in the browser with something entirely origonal 
>and much more functional than mimicking microsofts explorer.exe

1) I could achieve the same effect with much less overhead by 
   just replacing the windows GUI.  This is a pice of piss nowdays
   because XP et al are skinnable

2) The browser interface you are using to illustrate your point
   MIMICS MICROSOFTS EXPLORER.EXE interface.

   

>>>If anyone has any information on running programs from the root window
>>>or opening up new programs inside of children of the root window...
>>>even by using OpenGL..  please let me know.
>> 
>> AFAIK you can scribble all over any window you can get the hWnd for,
>> and you can get the hWnd of any window you fancy using the FindWindow 
>> API call (assuming you know what its called, and what class it is, 
>> otherwise you will have to do the EnumWindows thang)
>
>Not the root window.

So you say.  


>> When you create a new window programmatically, using the 
>> CreateWindow API call, you can specify the hWnd for a parent 
>> window, I dont know if this works on your "root" window,
>> because I've never tried.
>
>No it doesnt' work for the root window.
>
>> OTOH you could just find out how Active Desktop does it, and mimic it,
>> but then, as I said, why not just use an Active Desktop app ?
>
>An active desktop app will never be a fully featured web browser... 

>and I 
>seriously doubt you know what your talking about when you say you can code 
>your own replacement for active desktop.  

Thats because you are an idiot.  I am professional coder with many years
experience.  If you choose not to listen, thats your problem.

Anyone who wants to can sit down and code anything they damn well please,
if they have the time, the talent and the will to stick with it.  That is
all.  Again I remind you that just because *you* couldn't do it, doesn't
make it impossible.


>Why has no one does this, 

If you haven't figured out why from the answers you have been given, 
I can't help you, but you might like to consider that no one can be arsed
because Active Desktop is already there.

>if that 
>is indeed the case?  Show me something that supports your statements 
>please...

I'm only going to say this one more time

ACTIVE DESKTOP IS THERE - that is 100% positive proof that it can be 
done.


>> I don't know if this helps at all.
>> 
>
>Not really, no.

No, I dont suppose it did, since you are evidently not prepared to listen
to the advice you solicited.


--
 /------------------------------------------------------------\
|            Always mount a scratch monkey                     |
 \------------------------------------------------------------/

0
Lensman
11/25/2004 10:30:34 AM
Reply: