• The Old New Thing

    How can I recover the dialog resource ID from a dialog window handle?


    Occasionally, I see someone ask a question like the following.

    I have the handle to a dialog window. How can I get the original dialog resource ID that the dialog was created from?

    As we saw in our in-depth discussion of how dialogs are created from dialog templates, the dialog template itself is not saved anywhere. The purpose of a template is to act as the... well... "template" for creating a dialog box. Once the dialog box has been created, there is no need for the template any more. Consequently, there is no reason why the system should remember it.

    Besides, if the dialog were created from a runtime-generated template, saving the original parameters would leave pointers to freed memory. Furthermore, the code that created the dialog box almost certainly modified the dialog box during its WM_INITDIALOG message processing (filling list boxes with data, maybe enabling or disabling some buttons), so the dialog box you see on screen doesn't correspond to a template anywhere.

    It's like asking, "Given a plate of food, how do I recover the original cookbook and page number for the recipe?" By doing a chemical analysis of the food, you might be able to recover "a" recipe, but there is nothing in the food itself that says, "I came from The Joy of Cooking, page 253."

  • The Old New Thing

    Why isn't Windows Setup just a disk reimage plus a registry dump?


    Why can't all the registry key needed by Windows Setup be precomputed and splorted at one go? One reason is that Windows Setup can be customized via a so-called "unattend file", which means that a lot of the work cannot be precalculated. Some settings also have cascade effects on other settings.

    Also, the model for component registration is to make each component responsible for its own registration, which can in turn be context-sensitive: "If the system has configuration x, then do y else z". Internet Explorer's component registration for example contains many conditional sections based on the installation configuration specified in the unattend file and the even fancier Winbom.ini file used by Sysprep-based deployment (which is used by computer manufacturers and large corporations).

    Making each component responsible for its own registration reduces entanglements between components but also means that "global optimizations" such as precalculating the registry cannot be done. Engineering is about tradeoffs and this is one of them: Maintainability vs. speed.

    (Of course, there are sections of the registry that are not context-sensitive, and those to some degree have already been gathered together for block copying onto the machine during Windows Setup. Look at the HIVExxx.INF files on your Windows XP CD.)

    That said, it appears that Longhorn setup is moving towards the "disk image" model. I wish them luck.

  • The Old New Thing

    Why do Microsoft code samples tend to use ZeroMemory instead of { 0 }?


    If you go browsing around MSDN, you'll find that code samples tend to call ZeroMemory explicitly rather than using "= { 0 }" notation. Why is that?

    To make it clearer for people who are used to other programming languages.

    Like it or not, a significant percentage of people who write programs for Windows do it in languages other than C and C++. Although those developers may have a basic understanding of C and C++, they don't have all the language subtleties memorized.

    Compare the situation of speaking in English to a group of people where not everyone speaks the language fluently. If you're considerate of your audience, you're going to avoid the more esoteric grammatical constructions, the rare words, and the obscure idioms. Instead of saying, "Were it to rain, we will see that umbrellas be available," you would use the simpler "If it rains, then we will make sure that umbrellas are available," thereby avoiding the grammatical complexity of the implied conditional by inversion ("if"), the subjunctive of condition ("were"), the implied conclusion ("then"), and the subjunction of intention ("be").

    Heck, even people who claim to know C and C++ don't have all the language subtleties memorized. Some of them have false impressions of what " = { 0 }" does. And who among us really has C/C++'s bizarre operator precedence rules committed to memory?

    Consequently, MSDN samples tend to use ZeroMemory to make it blindingly obvious what is being set to zero. One of the things we've learned over the years is that many people just copy/paste sample code without understanding it. If there are little things like ZeroMemory that can be done to make the intent of sample code clearer and reduce translation errors, then that's a good thing.

    If you prefer " = { 0 }", then go ahead and use it, secure in the knowledge that thousands of programmers aren't going to read your code and try to translate it into Visual Basic because that's the only language they know. But MSDN doesn't have that luxury.

  • The Old New Thing

    I'll see (some of) you in Los Angeles in September


    Jeremy Mazner has asked me to put together a 400-level session at this year's PDC. I came up with the title "Five(ish) things every Win32 developer should know (but likely doesn't)". Of course, now I have to think of five things! Here are some ideas I've been kicking around.

    • The memory scene: Physical address space != physical memory != virtual memory != virtual address space
    • Consequences of the way CPUs work: How my O(n) algorithm can run circles around your O(log n) algorithm; why much of what you learned in school simply doesn't matter
    • Parent vs. owner windows
    • Asynchronous input queues, the hazards of attaching thread input, and how it happens without your knowledge
    • Dialog units, DPI and the overloaded term "large fonts"

    Would you go to a talk that covered these topics? If not, what topics would you rather hear me talk about?

    Follow-up: The talk will be a little over an hour. (And fixed the title. Thanks, Dave.)

  • The Old New Thing

    Google is the cute two-year-old girl with curly blond hair that gets all the attention


    Let's see, Google Maps adds the world outside the United States, Canada and the UK, and people go ga-ga. Nevermind that Google's new "maps" have nothing beyond country boundaries. "Aww, look at Google, she's so cute and adorable!"

    I'm sure the people at the existing online map services like MapQuest and MSN MapPoint are sitting there like older siblings, wondering when exactly they turned into chopped liver. MSN MapPoint has actual maps of most of Europe, and MapQuest's library of maps is larger still. (Kathmandu anyone?) Both sites provide documentation on how to link directly to them. Yet they don't get drooled over.

    Somebody at MapQuest should take out a full page ad that goes something like this:

    Dear Google Maps,

    Welcome to the rest of the world! If you ever need driving directions, don't hesitate to ask.

    Love ever,

  • The Old New Thing

    Why do NTFS and Explorer disagree on filename sorting?


    Some people have noticed that NTFS automatically sorts filenames, but does so in a manner different from Explorer. Why is that?

    For illustration purposes, I created files with the following names:

    Name Code point Description
    aU+0061Latin small letter A
    bU+0062Latin small letter B
    ×U+00D7Multiplication sign
    åU+00E5Latin small letter A with ring above
    øU+00F8Latin small letter O with stroke

    And here's the sort order for various scenarios, at least on my machine. (You'll later see why it's important whose machine you test on.)

    Plain "dir" command
    aU+0061Latin small letter A
    bU+0062Latin small letter B
    åU+00E5Latin small letter A with ring above
    ×U+00D7Multiplication sign
    øU+00F8Latin small letter O with stroke
    "dir /on"
    ×U+00D7Multiplication sign
    aU+0061Latin small letter A
    åU+00E5Latin small letter A with ring above
    bU+0062Latin small letter B
    øU+00F8Latin small letter O with stroke
    Explorer sorted by name
    ×U+00D7Multiplication sign
    aU+0061Latin small letter A
    åU+00E5Latin small letter A with ring above
    bU+0062Latin small letter B
    øU+00F8Latin small letter O with stroke

    First, notice that Explorer and "dir /on" agree on the alphabetic sort order. (Once you throw digits into the mix, things diverge.) This is not a coincidence. Both are using the default locale's word sort algorithm.

    Why does the raw NTFS sort order differ?

    Because NTFS's raw sort order has different goals.

    The "dir /on" and Explorer output are sorting the items for humans. When sorting for humans, you need to respect their locale. If my computer were in Sweden, Explorer and "dir /on" would have sorted the items in a different order:

    ×U+00D7Multiplication sign
    aU+0061Latin small letter A
    bU+0062Latin small letter B
    åU+00E5Latin small letter A with ring above
    øU+00F8Latin small letter O with stroke

    You can ask a Swede why this is the correct sort order if you're that curious. My point is that different locales have different sorting rules.

    NTFS's raw sort order, on the other hand, is not for humans. As we saw above, sorting for humans can result in different results depending on which human you ask. But there is only one order for files on the disk, and NTFS needs to apply a consistent rule so that it can find a file when asked for it later.

    In order to maintain this consistency, the NTFS raw sort order cannot be dependent upon such fickle properties as the current user's locale. It needs to lock in a sort algorithm and stick to it. As Michael Kaplan pointed out earlier, NTFS captures the case mapping table at the time the drive is formatted and continues to use that table, even if the OS's case mapping tables change subsequently. Once the string has been converted to uppercase, it then needs to be sorted. Since this is not for humans, there's no need to implement the complex rules regarding secondary and tertiary keys, the interaction between alphanumerics and punctuation, and all the other things that make sorting hard. It just compares the code points as binary values, also known as an ordinal sort.

    In summary, therefore, Explorer sorts the items so you (a human) can find them. NTFS sorts the items so it (the computer) can find them. If you're writing a program and you want the results of a directory listing to be sorted, then sort it yourself according to the criteria of your choice.

  • The Old New Thing

    Why can't the default drag/drop behavior be changed?


    A common reaction to my explanation of whether dragging a file will result in a move or copy was that there should be a setting that lets you change the algorithm by which Explorer decides whether you want to move or copy.

    There are a few reasons why this is a bad idea.

    First, if there were such a setting, then it removes some of the predictability from the user interface. One of the benefits of a common user interface is that once you learn it, you can apply the rules generally. But if each user could customize how drag/drop works, then the knowledge you developed with drag/drop wouldn't transfer to other people's machines.

    Some people view infinite customizability as a good thing. But each added bit of customizability increases the possibility that a particular combination of settings won't get tested as heavily as perhaps it should. ("What do you mean, this doesn't work if you have the notification icons set to hide after only 5 seconds, the taskbar's auto-hide delay customized to a value larger than 5 seconds, the taskbar buttons customized to a boldface font larger than 14pt, and drag/drop operations defaulting always to move? How could you have missed that combination in your testing? Surely you should have anticipated the interaction between an auto-hide delay longer than the notification auto-hide delay combined with a nondefault drag on a network with fewer than 50 machines!")

    Infinite customizability also means that you can't just sit down in front of somebody's machine and start using it. You first have to learn how they customized their menus, button clicks, default drag effects, and keyboard macros. "Oh, on this machine, you paste by shift-right-clicking. Sorry. On my machine, I use ctrl-alt-middle-click to paste." Imagine if everybody could easily customize the order of the clutch, brake, and gas pedals in their car to suit their fancy.

    There is also the branding element. Like the Mac, Windows tries to cultivate a specific "look" that makes people say, "Hey, this computer is running Windows; I know how to use it!" My DVD player and my car both show the manufacturer's logo when they are booting up. So too does Windows.

    Even if the "change the default drag/drop behavior" option passed "settings court" and was deemed worth the additional test cost, you still have the problem that it affects only Explorer. Other programs would continue to use the old algorithm, at least until you found their settings to change how they perform default drag/drop as well, if such a setting existed at all. Imagine the confusion if Windows Explorer followed one set of rules, but Microsoft Outlook followed a different set of rules. "Oh right, this is a mail message I'm dragging; the default operation is going to be a move, not a copy."

  • The Old New Thing

    What if two programs did this?


    The thought experiment "Imagine if this were possible" is helpful in thinking through whether Windows lets you do something or other. (A special case of this is "When people ask for security holes as features.") If the possibility leads to an obvious contradiction or the violation of generally-accepted rules of metaphysics, then you can be pretty sure that Windows doesn't support it. (Of course, the absence of such a contradiction doesn't prove that Windows does support it. But you can use it to rule out obvious bad ideas.)

    The question "What if two programs did this?" is also helpful in evaluating a feature or a design request. Combining this with "Imagine if this were possible" leads to an impressive one-two punch. Here are a few examples:

    "How do I create a window that is never covered by any other windows, not even other topmost windows?"

    Imagine if this were possible and imagine if two programs did this. Program A creates a window that is "super-topmost" and so does Program B. Now the user drags the two windows so that they overlap. What happens? You've created yourself a logical impossibility. One of those two windows must be above the other, contradicting the imaginary "super-topmost" feature.

    "How do I mark my process so that it always the first/last to receive the system shutdown notification? I want to do something before/after all other programs have shut down."

    Imagine if this were possible and imagine if two programs did this. You now have two programs both of which want to be first/last. But you can't have two first or two last things. One of them must lose. (This of course generalizes to other things people might want to be first or last.)

    "How do I make sure that my program is always the one that runs when the user double-clicks an .XYZ file?"

    Imagine if this were possible and imagine if two programs did this. Now the user double-clicks an .XYZ file. Which program runs?

    In this case, the solution is to leave the user in charge of their file associations; if they decide that they want your competitor's program to be used for .XYZ files, then that's their decision and you should respect it.

    My colleague Zeke [link fixed 11am], who is responsible, among other things, for the way file associations work in Explorer, provides a few alternatives:

    Here is the entry point in MSDN to the documentation on file associations in Explorer.

    For many of these "I want to be the X-est"-type questions, you can often come up with some sort of hack, where you run a timer that periodically checks whether you are still X, and if not, pushes you back into the X-position. And then you stop and think, "What if two programs did this?" and realize that it's a bad idea. At least I hope you do.

    Even with this explanation, some people still don't get it. I'll ask them to consider, "What if two programs did this? They'll be fighting back and forth," and the answer I get back is, "Then I can have the second program check if the first program is already running." They don't understand that they didn't write the second program.

    When two programs "duke it out" like this, you can't predict which one will win, but you can predict with 100% certainty who will lose: The user.

    I remember well when one of my colleagues called me into his office to show me two very popular commercial programs that both wanted to guarantee that they were the program that ran when the user double-clicked an .XYZ document. Since there is no such guarantee, they faked it with the timer hack.

    You installed the first program, it set itself as the .XYZ file handler, and everything seemed normal. You then installed the second program, it set itself as the new .XYZ file handler, and the first program noticed and said, "Uh-uh, I'm the program that runs .XYZ files", and changed things back. Then the second program said, "No way, I'm the program that runs .XYZ files" and set itself back.

    This childish game of "Nuh-uh/Yuh-huh!" went on while the user sat there dumbfounded and helpless, watching the icon for their .XYZ files flicker back and forth between the two programs, both of whom egotistically believed they were doing the user a "favor" by insisting on being the program that runs .XYZ files.

  • The Old New Thing

    If strncpy is so dangerous, why does Visual Studio 2005 still support it?


    In response to the news that strncpy is so dangerous, at least one person has called for Visual Studio to revoke support for such a dangerous function, considering the continued support for the function grounds for holding the compiler manufacturer liable for any defects in programs compiled with that compiler.

    Well, for one thing, while it's true that strncpy is dangerous if used improperly, it is still a valid function, and my original discussion explained the history behind strncpy and the very specific scenario in which it is still useful. It just so happens that most people don't use the function in the manner it was intended, but instead treat it as a sort of "copy string with a character limit" function, which it isn't really.

    For another thing, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported. Pointers and casts are dangerous, but I don't see them disappearing from C or C++ any time soon.

    Third, support for strncpy is mandated by the C standard. If you removed it, you couldn't call yourself a C compiler any more. (Not to mention breaking compatibility with existing source code that uses the strncpy function. How would you like it if you bought a so-called C compiler and found that it couldn't compile a large class of valid C programs?)

  • The Old New Thing

    Using /LARGEADDRESSAWARE on 64-bit Windows for 32-bit programs


    Probably the biggest advantage of 64-bit Windows is not the larger registers but rather the expansive 64-bit address space. Recall that even when the /3GB switch is set, 32-bit programs receive only 2GB of address space unless they indicate their willingness to cope with addresses above 2GB by passing the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag.

    This flag means the same thing on 64-bit Windows. But since 64-bit Windows has a much larger address space available to it, it can afford to give the 32-bit Windows program the entire 4GB of address space to use. This is mentioned almost incidentally in Knowledge Base article Q889654 in the table "Comparison of memory and CPU limits in the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows".

    In other words, certain categories of 32-bit programs (namely, those tight on address space) benefit from running on 64-bit Windows machine, even though they aren't explicitly taking advantage of any 64-bit features.

Page 81 of 93 (925 items) «7980818283»