pouët.net

was that fixed in the service packs Maali, because back then i look it up and i had to use some run command that brought it up.

the above pic is not straightforward? burn your pc eebliss, you clearly dont know how to operate one :)

iirc i turned it off in a similar fashion just after a few weeks running vista, way before SP1 was out.

skrebbel: yes, it can be completely turned off (and it's a visible option too, nothing hidden, or registry tweaking or anything)... it'll leave a warning icon in the notification area, but that one can also be turned off at will (again, with a simple option, no tweaking whatsoever).

And it can also (that's not with default options) tweak it so that it doesn't ask for confirmations on admin accounts (except for elevated permissions), but does on normal ones (which is how I have mine configured).

I feel UAC as a good thing... both on the user end, and on the developer one, since it kind of forces developers to actually write better software (or at least, respect the Windows guidelines): for example, a non-elevated process can't write to c:\program files, kind of forcing applications to actually use the user data directories for storing data, configurations, etc.

This has caused some legit applications to stop working when running non-elevated (because they used their application directory for writing), with thousands of complains from users of those applications... but then again, the windows development guidelines have said to avoid this for ages... so it's kind of a ISV problem, not Windows' one.

It, of course (and most obviously) helps users not to install anything that might require administrator permissions (even on the background) without a UAC prompt... I usually know what I install on my machine, so I have turned the repeated prompts off, but for normal users... this is IT-helpdesk heaven really (things will never "install themselves" anymore)

lol yeah

Maali, ok im a computard then. I went on the net for some elaborate hack, did work tho.

staying on the topic of DX btw... im sure i have been told this before, but why is it that dx10 could not be patched into Xp again. Please use simple sentences.

eebliss: My speculation: marketing.

well that one is obvious, but there arent any technical issues that prevents it from being pathced into XP?

eebliss: because Vista uses a newer graphic driver model, and DirectX 10 compliant hardware must provide support for some of its features (to be "DirectX 10 compliant").

Probably it's just burocracy and paperwork for logo certifications (read: because Microsoft doesn't want DX10 on XP), but there is indeed some required driver compliance with the WDDM to get DX10 certified hardware

By the way, the original technical reason why DX10 was Vista-only was memory virtualization... but that was stepped back since nVidia couldn't do it on time for their cards.

You might argue wether it is important to be certified or not, but since DX10, it indeed is... DirectX 9 and prior could be certified without all required features (developers would then check the capabilities of the card and act accordingly)... since DX10, that doesn't exist anymore: if a card is DX10-compliant, it is, with all its features (they can be slow, but they are at least implemented on the driver).

So certification does indeed make a change with this new model (on marketing reasons, of course... but what else are card-vendors or mass-game developers thinking of?)

Ah, and for the demoscene that should also mean that, except for possible driver/shader bugs... if a demo is programmed "strictly" for DirectX 10, it will work on all DirectX 10 cards (ATI vs nVidia "should" be a matter of performance now, and not a matter of "working or not" :-) )

Deliberately avoiding any deep technical debate... my switch from XP to Vista was very easy, i dont understand people saying they feel "alienated" by the way the new OS works, its not much of a drastic change that it doesent take a day or so of playing around with it to figure it all out and get used to it, and if you say you've been a windows user for years and feel alienated by vista you must have a very short attention span. Vista _for me_ has been more stable than XP ever was.

Jcl makes good points, and at the end of the day you use what works best for you, i wont tell anyone to change nor do i want to be told what to use. If Linux had the apps i need to use for my work daily, i'd probably use that instead, so there :)

i wonder how much MS had to pay for that. It doesnt say a whole lot about the conditions under which these videos were shot.

hm... I had Vista installed on the new laptop I bought two months ago. I'm very happy with it, dunno. It works very well, it's fast, 99% of the demos I have run, compilers compile, and... well. Anyway I live in my buble (don't read newspapers or surf the internet, neither I wathc tv) so I don't know what you guys have read or heard, but in my little universe Vista is just as ok as anything I had before. It's also true I do nothing with it other than launching winamp, firefox, visual studio and messenger...

oh, about dx10 and dx11... what smash said :)

yeh, the Mojave-trick was brilliant :)

Beat this: I used mostly 98 (excluding on my dos machine) up to January 2008. Now I'm using mostly Linux, but I have also VIsta in my drawer (never installed it) and XP (not installed at the moment).

I will think that both DX 10 and DX 11 are useless, most of the DX 10 features are already present on OpenGL (2, not 3), and I think taht this will not change anytime soon...

Also, as I said on a previous post, using DX 10 onward, limit your userbase to 10% of the people that use Windows (ie: it does not even count the people that use unix-like or bsd-like OS)

When you work free-of-charge, you usually want to stick to some API you like to make your life easier. This is the case for demomaking.
And another thing, people mostly watch demos on youtube or similar sites nowadays, so it doesn't really matter what platfrom or API you code for.

I highly agree, but you have to realize that the game industry likes DX and learning a whole new API (OGL) will "take time and resources" even though they will extend their user base...

About UAC: http://www.crn.com/software/207100934?cid=CRNFeed and http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/ireboot-and-working-around-uac-limitations/
Conclusion: UAC is fake and useless. Linux/Mac(BSD) "UAC like prompts" are real and cannot be bypassed without exploits (that usually are fixed 8h on average)

i'm glad iq doesn't consider pouet as part of the infamous intarweb :)

I would like to reverse a bit the terms, cause the sentece makes even more sense like that to me:

I will think that both GL2 and GL3 are useless, a superset of the GL features are already present on DX 10 (and DX 11 too), and I think taht this will not change anytime soon...