CreateImage(0,4096,4096) = 0 ?

Rescator · Post by **Rescator** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:15 am

*scratches head*

Only thing I can think of is rundll but that would be a very slow and weird way to do it (if practical at all, sounds like a nightmare).

Post by **Dare2** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:19 am

Just downloaded and installed the demo.

Code: Select all

OpenLibrary(1,"kernel32")
Debug CallFunction(1,"GetTickCount")
CallFunction(1,"Sleep",3000)
Debug CallFunction(1,"GetTickCount")
CloseLibrary(1)
End

np.

Sparkie · Post by **Sparkie** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:08 am

I feel the biggest problem here is the language barrier.

@doodlemunch: I have seen many of your posts and I do not ever remember seeing anyone making fun of you or your English. Maybe it's your (mis)understanding or interpretation of the spoken words that make you feel that you are being made fun of.

doodlemunch wrote:thx u!!
i want to buy pb so bad!!!! learnin wiht the demo is not fun

ref: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 943#127943

I sincerely hope you come back and continue to save money for your purchase of PureBasic.

PB · Post by PB » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:26 am

> OpenLibrary(1,"kernel32")
> Debug "jo"
> CallFunction(1,"Sleep",3000)
> Debug "jo"
> CloseLibrary(1)

@Fred: Recommend you remove this possibility from future demo versions.

> u guys laughed of my english

I certainly didn't.

> say i use pirate of pb

I said Please don't tell me you're using a pirate version.
I did NOT say you were. Maybe you misunderstood me.

> u guys are ugly

Heh, you say that after I spent a night working on the "Close Program"
dialog for you! I'm sorry I did that for you now. If that sort of time and
support, for someone using the DEMO version, makes me UGLY, then
you can get lost for all I care.

(Edited to remove my profanity)

Post by **Dare2** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:46 am

@Fred: Recommend you remove this possibility from future demo versions.

Maybe not remove too much functionality?

What about having any exe made by the demo version open a small window.

The window says "This program created with the PureBasic Demo version" or similar.

The window stays open (although not necessarily an 'always on top' window) even after the program has ended (so console programs, on ending, reveal the advisory).

If this advisory window is closed, it also closes the program (if still running).

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:03 am

PB wrote:> in this post you are using inline WinAPI [...]
> which is impossible using the trial version

But he's claiming he's calling the API commands via Windows DLLs...

Nah, he said he's using commands in the 'XXXX_()' style which is impos using the trial:

doodlemunch wrote: i just have no error on creatin the gadget that is ok it only does not work when i do this

SetWindowLong_(WindowID(#Win),#GWL_EXSTYLE,GetWindowLong_(WindowID(#Win),#GWL_EXSTYLE)|$00080000)

and then i call this after some other code

UpdateLayeredWindow_()

it displais my png with shadow correctely but my gadgets are long gone will never apear

how can i make a window with no bakground so i can place it over this one at least?

Post by **Dare2** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:45 am

The thing that confuses me is, if using a pirated version, why claim to be using the demo? That seems a bit too weird.

More likely it is to show code on these boards in a format the rest of us are familiar with. It doesn't take much to edit CallFunction("Name" .. into Name_. Maybe doodlemunch tries to make things as straightforward as possible given the other difficulties in communication.

Anyhow, I don't know if he (she?) has a pirated version or not. It just seems to me that there is enough doubt to allow "innocent until proven guilty" to apply.

Ah well. I've said my piece now.

PB · Post by PB » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:16 am

> Nah, he said he's using commands in the 'XXXX_()' style which is
> impos using the trial

No, he said (and I quote directly from this thread):
i called tem by my own usin the dlls in windows sys dir!!

So I was only going by what he said here. Long and short of it: he's shown
the demo version can do things that Fred didn't intend, ie. call API commands.
For that reason, I think Fred should restrict the demo more. And also, maybe
restrict the IncludeFile command, because the demo is limited to X number of
lines in the source, but IncludeFile may be an exploit for that too.

I don't really like the "window" idea to identify an exe made from the demo.
What might be better is what I saw for another app: the compiled exe has a
specific filename that can't be modified. If renamed, the exe won't run. It was
called something like AppName Demo (Made by www.site.com).exe. That
would discourage spreading the app and also advertise the site as a bonus.

Post by **Dare2** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:19 am

I do like the window idea.

I also like the idea you just mentioned with the app name. That is pretty crafty!

Post by **Fred** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:20 pm

Actually the demo is limited in number of lines at the assembly level, so i really doubt your can do big programs with the demo.