rhv3pcs@mergvax (Richard Haasnoot) (11/09/89)
While working on a simple bitmap display program I wanted to disable the size border. However, upon investigation I found no method in which to do such a thing. I suppose I could simply ignore the WM_SIZE messages but I think their ought to be a way to do what I want to do. It occured to me also to call the function WinEnableWindow but I don't know the handle for the border and WinWindowFromID can't be used because there exists no FID_SIZEBORDER defined in 1.10. Is it possible that the bordering mechanism is a function of the frame window? If so, how do I disable it without imparing the function of the rest of the window? I'd really appreciate some insight into this matter. Thanx, Richie
slh@fred.cs.washington.edu (Scott Heyano) (11/15/89)
I think this will work: oldStyle = WinQueryWindowULong (hwndFrame, QWL_STYLE); WinSetWindowULong (hwndFrame, QWL_STYLE, oldStyle&~FS_SIZEBORDER); where hwndFrame is the frame window of the your client. This or something close to it should work. Or maybe not.
cs169054@brunix (Peter Golde) (11/18/89)
In article <12642@mergvax> rhv3pcs@mergvax (Richard Haasnoot) writes: > >While working on a simple bitmap display program I wanted to disable the >size border. However, upon investigation I found no method in which to do >such a thing. I suppose I could simply ignore the WM_SIZE messages but I >think their ought to be a way to do what I want to do. It occured to me I think what you want to do is to just create the frame window with the FCF_BORDER flag, not the FCF_SIZEBORDER flag. The will prevent the window from ever being resized. You will probably not want the FCF_MAXIMIZE button so that your window is never maximized.
paulb@minster.york.ac.uk (12/06/89)
Hi! As there are a number of people in this newsgroup who obviously seriously program OS/2 PM, I thought I'd ask about how people find it as a programming environment. Certainly, before I started using and programming PM, I was very put off by the adverse publicity in the computer press. When I finally had a crack at an OS/2 machine, I expected something slow, complex, arcane and unreliable. In truth, I found that I was very impressed by the system, and especially by the ease of writing PM programs. Sure they're more complex than straight command-line style programs, but what wouldn't be? On reflection, I feel that OS/2 has been given a very raw deal by the press, which it doesn't deserve at all. What does anyone else think? Paul Butcher JANET:paulb@uk.ac.york.minster
cs169054@cs.brown.edu (Peter Golde) (12/10/89)
In article <628894921.26415@minster.york.ac.uk> paulb@minster.york.ac.uk writes: >On reflection, I feel that OS/2 has been given a very raw deal by the >press, which it doesn't deserve at all. > >What does anyone else think? > >Paul Butcher >JANET:paulb@uk.ac.york.minster Of course it has. As have most things that are pretty good. It is far easier and more exiting to report failures than successes. Especially when the reporter porbably knows diddly-squat about what he/she is writing. If they really knew computers, they wouldn't be writing for some magazine, they'd be working for some computer company. --PeterG
golding@saturn.ucsc.edu (Richard A. Golding) (12/10/89)
In article <628894921.26415@minster.york.ac.uk>, paulb@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > Hi! As there are a number of people in this newsgroup who obviously > seriously program OS/2 PM, I thought I'd ask about how people find it as > a programming environment. > ... In truth, I > found that I was very impressed by the system, and especially by the > ease of writing PM programs. Sure they're more complex than straight > command-line style programs, but what wouldn't be? > I suspect that the general observation is accurate that PM programming has been trashed in the press because it's more complicated than straight-line programming. However, PM programming is far more painful than it need be. Having worked in four different windowing environments -- PM, OpenView, X11 Xlib, and X11 toolkit (Xt), I have a definite preference for Xt. Several critical components of Xt are simply far better designed than the equivalent parts of PM -- presumably the result of MIT and Stanford having iterated on the problem of writing windowing applications for several years, then having a significant fraction of workstation manufacturers provide input before settling on any particular design. For example, X uses a `translation manager' to govern the mapping between external events and widget actions; a user or programmer can reconfigure the event-to-action bindings as needed for any particular application. PM has no such facility. Xt gets by with far fewer basic kinds of widgets than PM does controls, because the widgets are customisable. Some of the Xt widgets are much better designed than their PM counterparts -- the textWidget family, for example, is an extremely flexible set of tools that can be composed to yield a number of different kinds of multiple- and single-line text entry widgets, whereas PM has the rather clunky MLE which has no composability. (Concrete example: if you want to edit a text file, with Xt you use an asciiDiskWidget, which creates a `text source' of the file and uses a standard `text sink' to display the information. With PM you have to handle loading the text into the control yourself.) In summary, I'd say that PM programming probably isn't as bad as many people say it is. But it's a lot more painful than it needs to be. -richard ----------- Richard A. Golding, Crucible and UC Santa Cruz CIS Board Internet: golding@saturn.ucsc.edu Work: {uunet | ucscc.ucsc.edu}!cruc!golding
yozzo@larouch.uucp (Ralph Yozzo) (12/10/89)
I'm biased, but here goes anyway... PM is fine programming environment. PM provides a lot of functions that each programmer would have had to roll his own version of. For example, listboxes , menus, windows, scroll bars, and much more. The advantage of using PM is that programs can present a common user interface to the user. I find that the combination of PM and codeview make OS/2 1.1 and above a good programming environment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Ralph E. Yozzo | DISCLAIMER: The above message is from | | IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. | me and is not from my employer. IBM | | Arpanet: yozzo@ibm.com | might completely disagree with me. | | Bitnet: yozzo@yktvmx.bitnet \---------------------------------------| | Home: ..!uunet!bywater!acheron!larouch!yozzo | Phone: (914) 945-3634 work | | | Phone: (914) 564-4731 home | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) (12/11/89)
In article <628894921.26415@minster.york.ac.uk> paulb@minster.york.ac.uk writes: >.... Certainly, before I started using and >programming PM, I was very put off by the adverse publicity in the >computer press. When I finally had a crack at an OS/2 machine, I >expected something slow, complex, arcane and unreliable. In truth, I >found that I was very impressed by the system, and especially by the >ease of writing PM programs.... > >On reflection, I feel that OS/2 has been given a very raw deal by the >press, which it doesn't deserve at all. > I must say I'd go along with that. There is nothing outrageously confusing about PM, and it is certainly better than Windows. Of course, you can't expect the scribes at InfoWorld to know anything about that, and people like Duncan and Petzold of PC Magazine have extolled the praise of OS/2 consistently. I do think MS is partially to blame, though. (1) This waffling about Windows vs. OS/2 is extremely damaging. If they want to make Windows 3 with 16MB memory utilization, fine. BUT MAKE THE API THE SAME AS OS/2. (2) Believe me, NOBODY is going to buy an OS without an HP LaserJet driver. Why do they keep delaying the thing? (3) Ok, MS took the big companies to the cleaners by charging 3K for the SDK. Now it is time to TAKE OUT FULL-PAGE ADS in Computer Language, PJ etc with a one-stop-shopping offer for all you need to know to start writing an OS/2 PM program for $195. Like, send us the cover page of your C compiler and a check. They have such a promotion for CD-ROMs. I guess Bill G. cares more about CD-ROMS than OS/2. Yeah, I know MS claimed they lost money on the SDKs, but so what. They'll win big only if OS/2 catches on. And while they can rely on the Unix folks to make a mess of things for a while, UI and OSF just MIGHT agree on a common graphics API, and I for one wouldn't mind developing for that instead. So, as my lawyer says, "time is of the essence." Cay
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (12/13/89)
In article <628894921.26415@minster.york.ac.uk> paulb@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > [ ... ] > > On reflection, I feel that OS/2 has been given a very raw deal by the > press, which it doesn't deserve at all. > > What does anyone else think? > > Paul Butcher > JANET:paulb@uk.ac.york.minster actually, i would say just the opposite. considering the fact that OS/2 has been hyped for 2 years now with for all practical purposes _no_ applications or users, i would say that OS/2 has been given a really good deal by the PC press. yes, i know, OS/2 _does_ have users and some applications now, but i doubt that it has as many as the atari ST does. how often do you see many page articles on the ST in the press? basically, i think the _consumer_ has been/will be given a raw deal by OS/2. if ibm, microsoft and the pc press had put as much thought, work and hype into unix, we would have a much nice, easier to use and popular unix around today. unix can do for the entire computer industry, from micros to mainframes to supercomputers, what msdos did for the pc market: one standard platform that you can develop software for. yes, unix does have problems. lots of them. but so dos OS/2, msdos, vms, mvs/xa and every other operating system. as i see it, OS/2 offers the same advantages and disadvantages and unix, or any other "real" operating system. it's just that OS/2 only runs on the intel 80x86 processors. yeah, i know. microsoft is re-writing OS/2 into C so that it can be portable, but as i said, if they had put as much effort into unix has they have into os/2... basically, i can see real advantages for microsoft and ibm to get people to use os/2 instead of unix, but i dont see many advantages for the consumer. -wayne