Beta 11f multiple monitor bug - Page 2

Ralph · 05-23-2010, 02:29 PM

Testing a bit more with the current beta running in window mode. For what it is worth.... and not worth fixing, one could even argue showing the splash screen on the second monitor is a feature

When display setting for the second monitor is set to "display screen saver on this monitor" clicking on the same icon to start a second instance brings up screen capture 1. But, when this is done the second and subsequent times without rebooting, on the first occurrence one gets the MA splash screen.

When the display settings are set to "show nothing on this monitor" one gets screen capture 2 (the splash screen).

The second instance is also the active window.

In full screen mode the results are what one would expect, as in when "show nothing on this monitor" is selected one gets a black second screen.

Jim Sachs · 05-23-2010, 02:46 PM

Nothing I can do until I can set up a system to see this occur when the debugger is running. That won't be happening for a while.

Dale · 05-23-2010, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

Using a Mutex is a very common way to prevent a second instance of a program from opening.

Please pardon the following rude question: According to who? Or rather, who recommended it as a good way to do that?

Sorry for the above, but my MSCS degree and 45+ years of experience in the IT field both say that it "inhales briskly". And it clearly doesn't work (sometimes) in this application.

Many things that are "very common" in some circles, are not necessarily "recommended".

Having said that:

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

Nothing I can do until I can set up a system to see this occur when the debugger is running. That won't be happening for a while.

I was not suggesting that it be changed - I was just interested, from a technical viewpoint, in why it was occasionally failing.

Besides, you didn't write that code. And it works almost all of the time.

I quite agree that it should be on something like Page 179 of the "fix it" list - if it's on any list at all.

Jim Sachs · 05-23-2010, 05:44 PM

If you do a Bing sesarch for 'Mutex "second instance"', you will see about 6000 results, nearly all of which recommend using it to prevent a second instance of a program from coming up.

Dale · 05-23-2010, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

If you do a Bing sesarch for 'Mutex "second instance"', you will see about 6000 results, nearly all of which recommend using it to prevent a second instance of a program from coming up.

I didn't look at nearly all of them, but I'm not surprised that a search string that includes the word Mutex returns articles discussing Mutex.

If I do a Bing search for 'Mutex "second instance" deprecated' I get 1,660 results.

OK, let's exclude the word "Mutex" from the search:

If I do a Bing search for '"second instance" -(mutex)', I get 63,700,000 results.

If I limit further - say 'windows application framework properties "second instance" -(mutex)', I get 17,800 results.

All of my above searches "prove" nothing at all, except that we should not be arguing about this.

Jim Sachs · 05-23-2010, 09:37 PM

So stop.

feldon34 · 05-24-2010, 03:15 AM

It's been done this way for 9 years with few problems.

If you have a suggested code example on how to do it better, submit it. Otherwise, move on please.

Dale · 05-24-2010, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by feldon34:

It's been done this way for 9 years with few problems.

If you have a suggested code example on how to do it better, submit it. Otherwise, move on please.

It would be quite unprofessional for me to suggest a particular approach, without knowing anything else about the coding environment and program design.

Technology, available programming tools, and versions of operating systems have changed substantially in 9 years.

I understand why the current code works with a few problems, and I'm moving on.

05-23-2010, 02:46 PM	#22
Jim Sachs Developer Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Southern Oregon Posts: 9,771	Nothing I can do until I can set up a system to see this occur when the debugger is running. That won't be happening for a while. Jim Sachs Creator of SereneScreen Aquarium

05-23-2010, 05:44 PM	#24
Jim Sachs Developer Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Southern Oregon Posts: 9,771	If you do a Bing sesarch for 'Mutex "second instance"', you will see about 6000 results, nearly all of which recommend using it to prevent a second instance of a program from coming up. Jim Sachs Creator of SereneScreen Aquarium

05-23-2010, 09:37 PM	#26
Jim Sachs Developer Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Southern Oregon Posts: 9,771	So stop. Jim Sachs Creator of SereneScreen Aquarium

05-24-2010, 03:15 AM	#27
feldon34 Forum Administrator Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 10,938	It's been done this way for 9 years with few problems. If you have a suggested code example on how to do it better, submit it. Otherwise, move on please. "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

05-23-2010, 04:34 PM	#23
Dale Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 960	Originally posted by Jim Sachs: Using a Mutex is a very common way to prevent a second instance of a program from opening. Please pardon the following rude question: According to who? Or rather, who recommended it as a good way to do that? Sorry for the above, but my MSCS degree and 45+ years of experience in the IT field both say that it "inhales briskly". And it clearly doesn't work (sometimes) in this application. Many things that are "very common" in some circles, are not necessarily "recommended". Having said that: Originally posted by Jim Sachs: Nothing I can do until I can set up a system to see this occur when the debugger is running. That won't be happening for a while. I was not suggesting that it be changed - I was just interested, from a technical viewpoint, in why it was occasionally failing. Besides, you didn't write that code. And it works almost all of the time. I quite agree that it should be on something like Page 179 of the "fix it" list - if it's on any list at all.

05-23-2010, 06:56 PM	#25
Dale Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 960	Originally posted by Jim Sachs: If you do a Bing sesarch for 'Mutex "second instance"', you will see about 6000 results, nearly all of which recommend using it to prevent a second instance of a program from coming up. I didn't look at nearly all of them, but I'm not surprised that a search string that includes the word Mutex returns articles discussing Mutex. If I do a Bing search for 'Mutex "second instance" deprecated' I get 1,660 results. OK, let's exclude the word "Mutex" from the search: If I do a Bing search for '"second instance" -(mutex)', I get 63,700,000 results. If I limit further - say 'windows application framework properties "second instance" -(mutex)', I get 17,800 results. All of my above searches "prove" nothing at all, except that we should not be arguing about this.

05-24-2010, 08:46 AM	#28
Dale Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 960	Originally posted by feldon34: It's been done this way for 9 years with few problems. If you have a suggested code example on how to do it better, submit it. Otherwise, move on please. It would be quite unprofessional for me to suggest a particular approach, without knowing anything else about the coding environment and program design. Technology, available programming tools, and versions of operating systems have changed substantially in 9 years. I understand why the current code works with a few problems, and I'm moving on.