Windows 10 Taskbar

It has been more than 20 years since Windows 95, and taksbar still doesn't function properly:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-3053045/taskbar-fullscreen.html

It is like I'm using some crappy Linux, developed by hobbyists. And I remember pretty clearly that Windows XP had properly working taskbar. So why it is so broken now? Have Microsoft decided to turn their OS into Linux? Guess it is finally the year of Linux desktop!

And I'm not talking about some old obscure game for Windows 3.1, that fails to enter fullscreen. I'm talking about watching fucking youtube videos with Firefox and playing modern games, that were especially crafted for Windows 10. That is fucking achievement! Congratulation, Microsoft! I'm sure Bill Gates has sold his shares already.

I catch this issue on my laptop while watching tv shows like family guy and the simpsons with vlc on my windows 10 laptop. Never even dreamed it was a windows 10 bug causing this issue.

can not reproduce

>>1
>>2
>>3

You should use a Mac.

>>5

Maybe he does not like penis with poop.

>>6

Oh yes he does!

lol why are you using windows
stop being a lammer

>>8
how am I supposed to reverse-engineer games without using windows

>>9
I guess if that's the case you could use something like Wine.

>>10

using emulator to develop software

>>11
I thought you wanted to reverse engineer? With the software running in a VM/sandbox you actually have much more control to do that.

>>8
Why are you reverse-engineering games without source code?

>>12
I'm not him, but visual studio doesn't work with Wine

>>14
works perfectly in virtualbox

>>15
If you have latest MacBook Pro

>>16
yes of course

Bydlo thread

>>13
if he had source code then it wouldn't be reverse engineering, would it?

>>19
So you're telling me that there are people who want to study how a game works but they don't demand access to the source code to do it? That's stupid on the levels of Nikita.

>>20
why would that be stupid? games are mostly proprietary and devs won't just give you source code (especially when you want to cheat, datamine or create mods - well, the last one depends on the dev because some of them are very pro-modding). and when it comes to older games, source code might not even exist because it got deleted years ago, so reversing might be the only way towards restoration.

also, you can get paid for it https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/09/16/how-gog-com-save-and-restore-classic-videogames/

reverse engineer my dubs

>>21
If you choose to install proprietary games without source code, that's your own business. If you suddenly decide that you need to modify that very same proprietary game without source code, that's pure stupidity if your goal is to make practical modifications to the game. If your idea of fun is reversing compiled software (without source code) to make modifications to it, I'm not going to stop you. However, you cannot complain that you can't practically fix problems when you choose to put yourself into this situation. Explicit game modification support is no better. The amount of modifcation you can do is limited by the quality of the public API that exposes the game internals.

The smart way to live is to demand freedom in the software you choose. If your beloved game isn't free software, the smart way to live is to recreate the engine as free software.

GOG is an exception, not the rule. GOG has special privileges to do what they do. They modify binaries on a superficial basis because they won't have access to source code. They modify games with source code but they are explicitly blessed to do this. Users are forbidden to do what GOG are blessed to do.

>>23

If your idea of fun is reversing compiled software (without source code) to make modifications to it, I'm not going to stop you

that's exactly my idea of fun. I work in security so reversing is nothing new for me, but doing it with vidya can sometimes be even better than playing those games.

However, you cannot complain that you can't practically fix problems when you choose to put yourself into this situation

why not?

The amount of modifcation you can do is limited by the quality of the public API that exposes the game internals.

that's not true if you know how to RE

The smart way to live is to demand freedom in the software you choose. If your beloved game isn't free software, the smart way to live is to recreate the engine as free software.

guess what? engine recreations are usually done through RE. I've never done a recreation myself, but all the patches, scripts and write-ups that are results of my RE efforts end up GPL'd.

Users are forbidden to do what GOG are blessed to do.

well ackshyually, it depends on where you live. in my country, the law explicitly allows reverse engineering for compatibility so if there's a prohibition against it in a EULA , it is not enforceable. also, the law in my country disallows only RE done to circumvent copy protection, so in absence of other EULA regulations, you can do any reversing that doesn't touch the DRM.

It's a feature, not a bug.

>>24
You cannot complain about modifying proprietary software because
1) From the very beginning, you're supposed to accept that you're not allowed to access the source code
2) You're supposed to accept that reversing is the only way to modify the software
3) Reversing without source code is an inherently impractical way of working
4) You've actually chosen to accept these conditions

So to complain about the impracticality of studying reversed code is pretty stupid because you could have rejected the proprietary software in the first place and saved yourself the effort. If you actually think this is fun to do, then you wouldn't be complaining about the impracticality of modifying reversed code.

So what about free game recreations, drivers and other software? I believe that it is legitimate to study reversed code in order to create a set of software specifications, and not for the purpose of modifying the binary program. There is one (or more) person dedicated to creating that specification; this person is totally distinct to the person who is recreating software from that specification.

>>24

engine recreations

Why copyright infringing on someone else's source code, instead of writing your own engine, which you will own? Cudder is stupid.

>>27
That's what a recreation is.
http://openmw.org/
http://openrw.org/
http://nxengine.sourceforge.net/
http://openrct2.org/

>>28

What is the point in doing that, when license explicitly forbids decompilation? And you can always ask author nicely for source code, if you want to mod the game. And if author refuses providing the code, then just don't buy his game, instead o buy Crysis or other game they made source code available for.

>>26

If you actually think this is fun to do, then you wouldn't be complaining about the impracticality of modifying reversed code.

but nobody is complaining about that (even though people do want to make tools which make it more practical - like with everything really), people are complaining about Windows. RE is a tangential issue

>>29
All of these projects do not make use of decompiled code. The only code they accept is code that the copyright owner legally grants to the project. The engine recreation happens when an independent person writes new code (and not decompiled code) that makes the on screen characters move the same way as the proprietary game. They repeat this idea for every aspect of the engine recreation until they reach the point of feature parity with the original proprietary game.

Furthermore, I generally advocate for people to avoid installing proprietary games. I recognize that it's possible to enjoy a proprietary computer game as we don't rely on computer games to achieve our computing. It is possible for to enjoy a proprietary game and also desire it to be free software so we can modify and improve the game. For that case, it is probably worth the effort to start a free engine recreation project for that game.

>>31
I agree with the general sentiment but I do find it impractical. an engine recreation is a big and complex project (I'd argue it might be harder than making game from scratch, but it's comparing apples to oranges) and most people don't have time to develop and maintain one. my game RE projects are smaller, mostly about patching and/or datamining, and their're are released under GPL-3 because I want games (which are mostly proprietary) and games RE (which is mostly secretive cracking groups) to be freer.

decompile my dubs!

>>31
All of these projects copypaste IDA Pro's output, which is direct derivative of original source code and has the same general structure. It is just that the game companies don't really care if somebody restores source code. But try doing that to some useful software, like photoshop or adobe audition.

>>34
make your're fucking game nikita

>>35
his's is too much of a lazy bydlo to that. so his's is going to just shitpost instead

>>35
Exactly what I'm doing right now. Check commit history. And you have misdetected me again, you cudder-level mental midget.

windows is good because it has no systemd

>>38
This.

>>34

http://openapoc.org/threads/apoc-reversing.124/page-2

functions of time of day changing
__usercall change_pal@<eax>(int scall@<ecx>, signed __int16 interval@<si>
goto LABEL_13
word_E3594
__outbyte
HIBYTE(v5) = HIBYTE(word_E3594);

Not IDA Pro at all! Copying these snippets is totally not copyright infringement! That is how they develop open source software: pass Photoshop through disassembler, recompile and you get GIMP.