For some reason they're significantly more difficult than anything else in C so far. I guess it's because I can't think of good uses for them outside of arrays, and passing reference rather than value to functions. But you can make pointers that point to functions, what does that accomplish? (Or rather, what would it be used for?)
Have multiple locations point to the same value. This can make something shared, so each section has the same value and will not have to be updated if that value changes. Linked lists are a good example of this.
Real-time insertions and deletions, aka linked lists. Replacing a pointer is not expensive at all when you consider having to move possibly megabytes of data when you insert or delete into an array.
Two more good examples. But passing data by pointer is by far one of the most useful examples.
And it's possible to create a pointer that points to an array of pointers, and so on. Same question there.
Yes, yes and yes. A pointer can point to anything that has a valid memory location. A pointer has a memory address, an array has a memory address, and an array of pointers too, and so on.
So a pointer to a pointer: T**.
Also, the declaration annoys me. (EDIT: Said some half-truths here, removed)
How so?
And can someone explain the null pointer to me? Why would you set it to a memory address that doesn't exist?
We are unable to say whether a pointer is valid or not. So once you are done with a pointer, you normally set it to NULL so that we can explicitly check for NULL and see if it is a valid pointer or not.
Some functions may want a pointer to something but you might want to make this pointer optional. In that case, you can pass NULL in place of that pointer. The function can then check for NULL and see that it is not a valid pointer and ignore it. Otherwise we would get an access violation.
Also, C++ does allow 0 as a null pointer and there is a reason for this. In C any pointer can be converted to void* and backwards. In C++, this is not allowed.
Saying int* p = (void*)0; in C++ will give you a compile error. The workaround to this was simply making 0 into a magical number that can be implicitly converted into any pointer type.
In C++0x (the upcoming standard for C++), they introduce the nullptr, which is the new null pointer constant. But the real reason behind this is buried deep in the C++ language. It is all about types, because the 0 constant does not play well with some templates. nullptr would fix this.
There is a run of BT at SDA. Perhaps the route from there could be used until a better one can be found?
I am eager to see a first TAS of the game. Subsequent ones would only be better, no, so what is the harm?
However, rather circumvent only a small part of it as opposed to disabling it altogether, since malware will probably still have to ask you for permission before compromising your system.
Not if you install to non-admin locations like some seem to do. Then it is just as unsecure as if you were not running UAC.
These are interesting solutions which you have come up with simply to circumvent UAC. I ask you this: is it really secure? You are just circumventing UAC, thus you would not be protected by it. Is it really better than simply turning off UAC altogether?
I wonder myself. It does not seem like a solution.
Uh, that's their own problem then. You might find it surprising that there's a whole slew of design guidelines that make programs less "jarring" and incidentally also minimize the number of UAC prompts.
If a program requires you to copy something to Program Files, the program needs fixing, not the OS.
As in installing something. Extracting its program files to the program files directory. Yes, it is an installation so it should require admin rights, but the extraction program should ask for this.
Yes, it is partly their fault, but it is also the fault of UAC. Refer to what I mentioned about launching a program in compatibility mode via the context menu. For 7zip, it simply does not work.
Furthermore, some of Microsoft's programs also suffer from flaws, so I put the blame partly on UAC and partly on other programs.
Regardless, it does not work in practice, thus it needs to be disabled.
Raiscan wrote:
Err, not in Windows 7 it doesn't.
Yes, it DOES. This is Windows 7 I am speaking of.
Raiscan wrote:
"I have a problem with <x> so I'll just disable it rather than fix it!"
There is no proper fix. I used to run programs in admin compatibility mode to get around this, but this does not work as mentioned above.
And for Microsoft programs, compatibility mode is not available.
If you stand at a crossroad, where both roads lead to the same destination, but one path is one meter long and full of branches or other "dangers", and one path is 100 meters long, but is smooth and easy to walk, which one would you choose?
I will go so far out of my way to bend something like it to work as I will.
UAC is a technology that must exist, I do agree. It is good that it is on by default to force developers to take it into account, but that does not mean I have to use it.
Raiscan wrote:
Again, are you talking about Vista or 7? 7's UAC is much better than Vista's. From what I can tell you're complaining about Vista's version..
What basically changed from Vista to Win7 is the frequency of the popups (and some under the hood changes to make it more secure internally, I suppose), yet that is not the problem. The problem is that I do not get a prompt when trying to perform admin stuff.
Why do I have to launch the command prompt in admin mode, for example, to perform a disk check? Would it not be better if the disk checker asked for admin rights to perform the check?
ZeXr0 wrote:
I don't find it intrusive in Windows 7. Never got annoyed by this, I don't know, It almost never pop for me. Unless an old software really need administrator rights. And once it's accepted for a software, it will always be for the life of that application.
It is not intrusive, it is in the way. It does not prompt for admin rights when it really should, thus making admin stuff fail.
There are programs that do not use installers.
Furthermore, UAC also tends to cause problems doing certain Admin-related activities with Explorer, for example.
But these are all nasty work-arounds. I do not desire to do such things to ensure it works properly. UAC should not be in the way - it should help, which it clearly does not do right now.
I have not any virus for how knows how many years, with UAC disabled, I might add, so I am not turning it on anytime soon.
It is a sign that that have a lot of work to do still with UAC and its related implementation. It should help, not hinder.
I know I can do that, but I do not want to bother.
I want access to every part of my hard drive at any time. What if I am extracting a program? It requires me to extract to the program files folder which is admin protected.
If I turn up the permissions, it is as good as disabling UAC altogether.
Ah the infamous UAC. A step in the right direction, yet so miserably broken in practice.
All it does is cause pains, problems and annoyance. Programs just don't ask for administrator rights when they should, making UAC rather useless.
I always disable it, since it gets in the way of using the computer.
7's version is alot better than Vista's purely because the user's direct control over items is no longer interrupted. For example, If you want to change permissions on a folder in C:\Program Files, right clicking on it, properties, security, etc. no longer pops up asking if you want to do it. Same goes for renaming and creating. Changing permissions, creating and modifying usually does require allowing though.
I remember in Vista when you had a popup to make a folder in Program Files, a popup when renaming the folder, and another popup when you either moved something into it or changed permissions. Ugh.
The problem is not how often you have to click a button, but rather, how much I can work undisturbed with UAC on.
There are, for example, things that you just cannot do in Explorer because it does not ask for Administrator rights. Furthermore, context menus will not launch a program if you have set that program to require Admin privileges (compatibility tab) [such as 7zip]. And programs like 7zip will not ask for privileges when extracting to a place on your hard drive which requires admin rights. Furthermore, like I explained, you cannot set it to require admin rights on the compatibility tab if you want it to work with context menus.
And of course, native Windows programs will not allow you to set the compatibility run as admin option.
It is fundamentally broken if it impacts everyday actions.
Windows 7 is another piece of crap.. s hitty interface plus everything you try to do gets you a "denied acess".
Even using an admin acount you need a run as admin..
Windows is becoming Linux...
You can disable UAC if you don't like it.
In my opinion, UAC is the one of the few things that MS has done right. Have you ever heard of viruses or spyware on Linux? Probably not, and that's because the end user doesn't run with 24/7 admin rights so the spyware can't compromise the whole system, and even if it compromises one user, it should be easy to remove. Similarly, programs are written for Linux with the assumption that the user is not an administrator, so you won't have to mess with the admin tools if you want to run them normally. Those programs which you must run as administrator on Windows to make them work properly are either badly written programs or they actually need the admin rights to do their purpose (changing system-critical settings) so they should only be used when necessary. Currently Windows UAC is at a similar level as Ubuntu's "sudo"-based admin method, but it's definitely the step in the right direction.
Ah the infamous UAC. A step in the right direction, yet so miserably broken in practice.
All it does is cause pains, problems and annoyance. Programs just don't ask for administrator rights when they should, making UAC rather useless.
I always disable it, since it gets in the way of using the computer.
As noted in the "recent encodings and VLC" thread, there isn't always a player available that can handle recent encodings. Is it reasonable to expect all of our Mac users to upgrade their operating systems just so they can use a newer version of VLC?
Isn't libavcodec cross platform?
Avi is dead, let's face it, and it should have been dead a long time ago. Even MPEG4 ASP, aka DivX/XviD doesn't work properly in AVI without hacks!
The new native formats supports these encodings properly.
But I'm beginning to wonder if people are actually complaining about the use of the compression codec, rather than the actual container.
We're in a transistion period now. Don't resist it, go with it. Solve the problems and help people overcome their problems instead, because regardless of what anyone says, we're not going back to avi (I'm not talking about TasVideos here; I'm talking about the trend). It's sort of like saying, don't put it on DVDs, put it on CDs/diskettes. Old technology comes and goes, and the new technology replaces it. It just takes some time to adjust to the change in the beginning, that's all.
Another point that I've though of is: no matter what format you use, there will always be people who complain or can't get it to work. That's whether it's avi or mkv. Admittedly, you have come here to complain, but I'm pretty sure that there are lots of people, both on the avi and mkv side, who had problems but didn't come here to complain.
Another thought is this:
Because mkv natively supports all this stuff, no hacks are required, and that should--theoretically anyway--mean less work for developers on trying to implement nasty hacks, which no one likes. Simply implement the format properly and--boom!--everything works, instead of having to implement hacks. Everyone is happy.
For Windows that I use, Zoom Player. Allows you to play virtually any file directly after install (it's dshow based).
Linux and Mac, I have no idea. I have used neither.
I'd just like to say:
Everything is now switching over more and more to H264 + MP4/MKV. If you can't cope with this, then you need to get on with the times. because H264 SHOULD NOT be embedded into avi containers. Avi containers simply were not built for this purpose! It's simply too old!
And as mentioned before, ffdshow + Haali = play on any dshow based media players (including WMP).
You will all be doing yourselves a favor by getting "MKV compatible." Simply because it's the future, and not just on this site.
Don't blame the format; blame the players!
Can someone remind me why we favour small filesize over compatibility these days? I thought the point of the movie files was to allow as many people to watch the movies as possible.
But it is. All people have to do is download a proper player.
Not making use of the latest and greatest is a crime :D
I just had a look at SUPER.
It probably stands for Super Crap.
Loading screen on the top-left of the screen.
Horrible GUI.
Keeps centering GUI after each friggin' option.
Not easy or intuitive to find out how to actually encode rather than mux.
Does not auto-detect resolution or fps.
No option to select HE-AAC.
No profiles.
No advanced options for compression.
Not to mention their stupid site rejects all download managers.
Sorry, the program just sucks. MeGUI is far superior to that one. I can only recommend MeGUI.
And I can understand that you feel that way. People are different. That's a fact.
I wish it could have been easier, too, but but... it's a tool aimed at professionals first and foremost.
Oh and there are things like one-click encoder, but it's not as good or flexible as the manual way.
While I haven't tried SUPER (it sounds interesting, though, I'll have to give it a try), MeGUI is very easy to use.
Goto tools -> avisynth creator, select movie, OK, select profile, enquene.
Then select audio file, select audio profile, enquene.
Goto quene tab, select start.
No, it's not a very fast nor super easy, but it's still not difficult.
MeGUI is a very good all-in-one encoder.
Has anyone tried, oh I don't know, MeGUI?
It has a profile for PSP and many other things besides...
You should have 0 problems with framerate, resolution and all that.
Zoom Player works out of the box for almost every video and audio format.
That said, H264, AAC and MP4 will be supported out-of-the-box in Win7.
However, some formats, such as Ogg, and MKV (!) will not, so it's highly recommended that you still use a 3rd party media player (such as Zoom Player).
x264 (and many Avisynth filters) works with YUV12.
Windows 7 will not add anything noticeable that will affect encoding. Heck, it's impossible. The only thing that will change that is an updated compression standard.
You're using way too high bitrate.
My first encoding test yielded a size of 34.6 MB (video only). Quality isn't perfect just yet, so I'm slowly testing my way up to see a point where I can hit a spot where quality is flawless.
Update:
Size: 59.2 MB
Few problems with scene transitions; otherwise good quality.