UltraVNC

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-12-29 09:13

As we are moving to VS2005, people we want to compile the code thereself would need a VS2005 version in the future.
Code syntax differ a little between VC6.0 and VS2005, it would be to hard
to maintain different source codes.

Good news is that the express version is current (until nov 2006) a free
download from Microsoft.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/

by **Oliver** » 2005-12-29 13:22

Darn. I just bought 2003 recently (and 2005 is not available until in 6 weeks, here in Germany).

Are the project files finally backwards compatible, so I can still stick with 2003? I am doing my driver development under 2003 as well.

Cheers,

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-12-29 13:52

With your msdn account, you can download VS2005.

Each msdn subscription automatic include a VS2005 license...

by **Oliver** » 2005-12-29 14:51

I just don't like the idea to use 2005, while it is not proven that it works in all aspects, and while 2003 is still state-of-the-art.

Furthermore there are (justified) concerns about 2003 and 2005 on the same machine.

by **UltraSam** » 2005-12-29 17:51

Same thing for me.

We use VS 2003 at work and are satisfied with it.

I've had bad feedback from VS 2005 early users and latest version users...

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-12-29 21:26

My reason for moving to 2005, was that i could use one project for
CE, 32 and 64 bit. Is this also possible with 2003 ?

An other issue, is that MS seems to have removed the 2003 express version. Is the express 2003 still availble for download ?

Does 2003 run on a 64bit cpu, i special got a 64bit PC to be able
to native debug 64 bit apps applications.
If use the same compiler as the DDK (2003) you only can crosscompiler 64bit apps.

Can't we keep project files in subdirs.. i just downloaded zlib with
VC6.0 2003 and 2005 projects

As i ported already commercial apps to 2005, any idea about the problems.
-unstable exe ?

by **Oliver** » 2005-12-29 22:02

Rudi De Vos wrote:My reason for moving to 2005, was that i could use one project for
CE, 32 and 64 bit. Is this also possible with 2003 ?

Haven't tested, but it should be. Since the betas for 2005 where not publicly available early enough it would not have been possible to compile 64bit targets. So I believe it should be able - haven't tested though, alone because I lack the 64bit support

But what for do you want to compile 64bit binaries? Only drivers have to be 64bit on 64bit OS. The rest could be 32bit, in fact.

Rudi De Vos wrote:An other issue, is that MS seems to have removed the 2003 express version. Is the express 2003 still availble for download ?

What for the express version? Any other edition would do, don't you think so? I personally use Standard, but it doesn't matter if it was Professional or Enterprise.

Rudi De Vos wrote:Does 2003 run on a 64bit cpu, i special got a 64bit PC to be able
to native debug 64 bit apps applications.
If use the same compiler as the DDK (2003) you only can crosscompiler 64bit apps.

I guess it does not run natively on 64bit. When talking about 64bit, are you considering Itanium or the AMD64-technology (which is partially used by new Intel processors as well)? The DDK compiler for Itanium is a native one.

Rudi De Vos wrote:Can't we keep project files in subdirs.. i just downloaded zlib with
VC6.0 2003 and 2005 projects

That is what I wanted to do initially. Someone said we shouldn't keep things together, though. I agree that the different sources should be kept in different places and that the parts which get in touch be kept as minimal as possible, so we could easily upgrade to a newer RVNC codebase, or ZLIB library or other library.

Rudi De Vos wrote:As i ported already commercial apps to 2005, any idea about the problems.
-unstable exe ?

Well, you are the only one then, who knows

It's supposed to be more ANSI-compliant, but still it is quite early to claim that (methinks :-D

).

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-12-29 23:11

But what for do you want to compile 64bit binaries? Only drivers have to be 64bit on 64bit OS. The rest could be 32bit, in fact.

I needed to recomile winvnc to 64bit, the 32bit version kept crashing
with the 64bit driver. Just recompiled with changing option to 64bit
and everything worked (ok, 20 lines of code needed to bechanges for 64bit, but i all placed them correct between #ifdef #else #endif)
"Shared memory between 32 and 64 bit can be an issue"
An other point is, it sells better....people with x64 want there apps to be
x64. That what they told me in Germany...

I'm not going to use the express version, but the standard, as lic came with msdn. But not all people have a license or want to spend money
for it. As MS want to push 2005, they offer the express version free,
so including 2005 project files could have it's use.

Itanium is dead, but more and more people are starting to use amd64 or em64t as they are not longer expensive.
As i needed to be able to run driver tests, the company i develop drivers for donated a 64bit PC. As i want to keep my old PC intact, the new will only serve for compiling and debugging. 32bit (via XP) and 64bit via (XP x64) double boot.

As only the project files differ, 2003 or 2005 is not realy an issue.
For end user it would even better, as they can use both.

by **Oliver** » 2005-12-30 00:07

Rudi De Vos wrote:I needed to recomile winvnc to 64bit, the 32bit version kept crashing
with the 64bit driver. Just recompiled with changing option to 64bit
and everything worked (ok, 20 lines of code needed to bechanges for 64bit, but i all placed them correct between #ifdef #else #endif)
"Shared memory between 32 and 64 bit can be an issue"
An other point is, it sells better....people with x64 want there apps to be
x64. That what they told me in Germany...

Okay

... and yes, shared memory can be an issue indeed, but shouldn't be as long as the usermode part allocates it. Have you considered to use different versions of the structures from the driver? Only the driver is aware of the 64bit addresses.

Rudi De Vos wrote:I'm not going to use the express version, but the standard, as lic came with msdn. But not all people have a license or want to spend money
for it. As MS want to push 2005, they offer the express version free,
so including 2005 project files could have it's use.

Let's check out the compatibility issues

Rudi De Vos wrote:Itanium is dead, but more and more people are starting to use amd64 or em64t as they are not longer expensive.

Don't call it dead before it is buried

... it is quite a good architecture but not feasible for consumers.

Rudi De Vos wrote:As i needed to be able to run driver tests, the company i develop drivers for donated a 64bit PC. As i want to keep my old PC intact, the new will only serve for compiling and debugging. 32bit (via XP) and 64bit via (XP x64) double boot.

Good choice

Rudi De Vos wrote:As only the project files differ, 2003 or 2005 is not realy an issue.
For end user it would even better, as they can use both.

Perhaps true.

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-12-30 00:50

Shared memory is an issue, as 32 and 64 bit use an other padding.
Natural, when it was already padded for 64bit it will also work on 32bit.
It could be that you read the wrong value's from a structure when you didn't previewed it for 64bit, like i did.

The current winvnc.exe (32) version already fail to read the dll version of the 64bit driver.
Strings get messed, is it posisble that XP 64bit need unicode ?

The strange thing was, al worked back after changing win32 to x64 at compiler level.

++little changes where needed
-for (int ; ; ) <--- seems to be needed even when variable was declared
-some string function required a cast
-SetWindowLong /GetWindowLong need to be replaced by there 64bit version..
-iostream.h --> iostream

All porting to 64bit was done in an hour, a lot faster then checking
driver/app for 64bit padding.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-02 01:36

I have not gotten ANYTHING to compile correctly with VS 2005. I have no idea why anybody would want any of this MS crapola. ;-)

Shouldnt we be using DevC++ to compile things? I mean, as an open source advocate, wouldn't that be the best choice? Sorry for my programming ignorance.

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2006-01-02 02:55

The best choise is the compiler you work the fastest with, and provide the needed debug tools to do the job.

For true open source, you need an OS like linux or reactos. If you want
to make software for wintendo, you also can use the visual studio environment. You total depend on the libs and headers provided by
MS anyway. MS provide a lot of sample code, via codeproject and msdn,
if you need to port the project to an other compiler for fast checking something, you loose to much time.

I was able to port current code in an hours to VS 2005, including a runnning x64 version. As my knowledge of DevC++ is little, i would
be still fighting to get it compiled.

For next version we will put the project files in seperate subdirs, if people
want to make a BCC or DevC++ project directory we will add them, but
can not maintain them.

by **Oliver** » 2006-01-02 10:50

killersquirrel wrote:I have not gotten ANYTHING to compile correctly with VS 2005. I have no idea why anybody would want any of this MS crapola.

It's your attitude or view, that it is crap(ola). I don't think so. Starting with the .NET editions MS pushed towards ANSI compliance and the resulting binaries are still among the best optimized (besides Intel's and Watcom's compiler, the Watcom compiler being freely available as well) - leaving GCC far behind. If you like your consoe, go for your console

I've worked with DevC++ and see no advantage over using my favorite syntax highlighting editor (ConTEXT) with the respective hotkeys defined. You have no GUI development helpers, there's no help compiler (or editor), there is no extensive help on all aspects of programming. Might be a joy to use it with an online documentation on a broadband connection, but not at 56k in my home :-D

killersquirrel wrote:Shouldnt we be using DevC++ to compile things? I mean, as an open source advocate, wouldn't that be the best choice? Sorry for my programming ignorance.

The sources are open, it is a misconception that the compiler would have to be OS as well. I never understood this position and still don't.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-06 00:52

Oliver wrote:
killersquirrel wrote:I have not gotten ANYTHING to compile correctly with VS 2005. I have no idea why anybody would want any of this MS crapola.
It's your attitude or view, that it is crap(ola). I don't think so. Starting with the .NET editions MS pushed towards ANSI compliance and the resulting binaries are still among the best optimized (besides Intel's and Watcom's compiler, the Watcom compiler being freely available as well) - leaving GCC far behind. If you like your consoe, go for your console
I've worked with DevC++ and see no advantage over using my favorite syntax highlighting editor (ConTEXT) with the respective hotkeys defined. You have no GUI development helpers, there's no help compiler (or editor), there is no extensive help on all aspects of programming. Might be a joy to use it with an online documentation on a broadband connection, but not at 56k in my home

With that being said, why doesn't VS 2005 compile Ultra VNC? I have something very important to do with it and I really need it working.

Also, DevC++ worked great in my programming class when we wanted to show off OpenGL goodies. It was the ONLY compiler that would compile the sample codes I found on the web. Also, it has lots of GUI helpers that you can add to it. Hey, I dont know what I am talking about like you do because I am not a programmer but GCC has tons of hardware specific optimizations that I rarely see on the commercial compilers. Honestly, when all of the smoke and mirrors of these commecial products are gone, I dont really see much left. ;-)

Its seems like marketing hype to me.

Moderated by Oliver at 2006-01-06 10:30:

Fixed the quote

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-06 04:12

I guess I am just wondering if ANYBODY has gotten UltraVNC to compile/run.

I have a programmer friend helping me and we found errors all over the
code. So how is it that there are working binaries? If the code that you
can download is worthless, why do they post working binaries? How?

The mystery thickens. Any help would be very appreciated.

Thanks!

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2006-01-06 12:01

Current bin are compiled with vc6.0 SP5 and processor pack.
You also need to have the latest SDK installed.
It also compile with the intel compilers + SDK.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-07 06:16

God bless you, Rudi De Vos!!!

I will install exactly what you said and compile it. My friend found some
errors in the code that is posted...the 1.0.1 source. Which leads me to
another question/comment. Do you compile the binaries from the
source that is posted online?

UltraVNC is really the best possible choice for what I need to do.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-08 08:38

I hate to show off my ignorance even more here but about the SDK....

Specifically, which SDK are we talking about here? Is this the 1Gb
GUI+ SDK? Or are we talking about something else here? Do you
have a link or specific name of the SDK file or files that I am looking
for? I am so sorry to bug you about this. :-(

I am sure there are others who would like to know too so if you knock
this one last question out, it will help us all. Heheh. ;-)

THANK YOU!!

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2006-01-08 18:21

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en

platform SDK windows 2003

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-12 01:52

Well, I have VS6 + SP5 + PP + SDK 2003 just like you said and 1.01 will not compile the server. There are 2 errors. Obviously there is something wrong. Maybe a config? Do I need to tweak something on the compiler?

I am going to try the Intel compiler and hope that it works.

The older UltraVNC code compiles just fine though.

Thanks!

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-01-12 02:03

authSSP.cpp does not compile. It says it has stomach cramps and its really grumpy. It spits out the following error message....

"You don't really care about my feelings."

Somehow I think I am missing something here but I just want this thing to compile. Any suggestions?

by **lizard** » 2006-01-12 05:33

to compile them on VC8 i had to cast certain items to (unsigned short*).
for the sake of compatibility i recommend you to also use:

Code: Select all: #if _MSC_VER<1400 /* OLD CODE FOR VC7- */ #else /* NEW CODE FOR VC8+ */ #endif

it might also demand you to alter the source as below:

Code: Select all: diff -dbr C:\workspace\C++\ultravnc\original/winvnc/winvnc/vncbuffer.cpp .\original/winvnc/winvnc/vncbuffer.cpp 842c842 < for (b = 0; b < nBytesPerPixel; b++) --- > for (int b = 0; b < nBytesPerPixel; b++) diff -dbr C:\workspace\C++\ultravnc\original/winvnc/winvnc/vsocket.cpp .\original/winvnc/winvnc/vsocket.cpp 37c37 < #include <iostream.h> --- > #include <iostream>

cheers

by **Marscha** » 2006-01-12 07:20

To compile authSSP.cpp (and other files):
- Install Platform SDK
- In Visual Studio add the directories to the Platform SDK's library and header files:
* Select the Tools\Options menu option
* Click the Directories tab

* Select 'Include files' in the 'Show directories for' dropdown box
* Add <drive:>\<...>\Platform SDK\Include
* Make it the first entry

* Select 'Library files' in the 'Show directories for' dropdown box
* Add <drive:>\<...>\Platform SDK\Lib
* Make it the first entry

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-02-19 08:27

Marscha, thank you very much for your excellent help. I did exactly what you said and now I only get 1 error. Its so close to compiling! I haven't yet begun to debug so I am posting this information a little early....

vncSSP.cpp
Generating Code...
Linking...
Creating library ..\..\Release/authSSP.lib and object ..\..\Release/authSSP.exp
uuid.lib(unknwn_i.obj) : fatal error LNK1103: debugging information corrupt; recompile module
Error executing link.exe.

winvnc.exe - 1 error(s), 8 warning(s)

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

by **Marscha** » 2006-02-20 08:01

I'm not a VS expert

But I would do the following:
- Close VS.
- Delete the directories Release and Debug which are created by VS.
- Start VS.
- Try to compile it again.

The error sounds like some portions of the code are compiled with the old settings and some with the new ones.
When the linker tries to make an executable of these pieces they seem not to fit together.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-02-22 22:17

I tried some tricks like using the old uuid.lib file and putting it into the new SDK folder (backing up the SDK uuid.lib file) and it compiles a bit further but then gets a whole mess of new errors.

I have NO IDEA how anybody compiles this project. I have no earthly clue how there is even such thing as a Ultra VNC Binary 1.01 with the stuff I have here. I compiled TightVNC flawlessly the first time! It works. Why doesn't this one work? So far, nobody can tell me what exactly I need to compile this software. I really need a working tool here. If I were joe programmer, I would do something about it but I can't.

Marscha, thank you very much for your help. If you think there is something more I can do, please tell me. I did what you said and still get the same error. :-(

EventLogging.cpp
GenClientServerContext.cpp
vncAccessControl.cpp
vncSecurityEditor.cpp
vncSSP.cpp
Generating Code...
Linking...
Creating library ..\..\Release/authSSP.lib and object ..\..\Release/authSSP.exp
uuid.lib(unknwn_i.obj) : fatal error LNK1103: debugging information corrupt; recompile module
Error executing link.exe.

winvnc.exe - 1 error(s), 8 warning(s)

by **Marscha** » 2006-02-23 08:20

Maybe you could try to compile with VS2005.
I think that Rudi added the appropriate project files for that.
You can get the source from http://sc.uvnc.com/ultravncV1 with a subversion client.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-02-24 10:40

Yes, he added some goodies on the web CVS. Problem is, I used my linux server to attemp to get the new stuff via CVS...failed. I hate to be a noob-and-a-half but I couldnt get it to work. I have before somewhere else but something didnt work for UltraVNC.

How can I download the whole VS2005 version without saving each and every file by hand on the web CVS??? I would love to see something posted. Beta or not, fine with me. :-)

Hey, I did reinstall XP. I might try once again with V6. Kinda hate to do that. I could install VS2005 if I can get the new code.

by **Rudi De Vos** » 2006-02-24 11:33

For svn you need a svn client, just like you need a cvs client for cvs.
There are svn clients available for all platforms.

Goto
http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html
and select your OS
or use
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/
a win32 gui based client.

by **killersquirrel** » 2006-03-03 06:33

Hey! I have the source code downloaded....RC24? Is that correct?

http://sc.uvnc.com/svn/ultravncV1/

What am I using to compile this? I assume this is the new VS2005 friendly code, correct? Do I need to update anything or do any prep work first?

I will compile it tonight hopefully.

Thanks!

UltraVNC

Visual studio 2005

Visual studio 2005

1.01 not working at all.

authSSP.cpp

Very close!

Who is online