You are here

WpfEyes (an XEyes clone)

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
kmecke
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2018-05-23 18:15
WpfEyes (an XEyes clone)

Program: WpfEyes
License: MIT
Description: WpfEyes is a XEyes clone for Windows. So if you are struggeling to find your Mouse cursor on one of the 3 x 4K Monitores you have attached to your computer, then this little program is your solution. It is based on Windows Presentation Foundation (Wpf) – so it is up to date and ready for Windows 10.

Website:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/wpfeyes/
(download)

https://github.com/kmecke/WpfEyes
(code)

https://youtu.be/9-hhQSGa_7Q
(...well)

With every Monitor I hooked up to my Win10 system I thought: I need my old XEyes back. First shot was to check PortableApps . Then Sourceforge, github (nothing that worked for me).... so I wrote a new one. If there is some adaptions / changes needed - let me know. Let me know how you like it.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
.NET 2?

I know you have this configured for .NET 4, but is it possible for you to get it working under .NET 2 as well? If so, it could be packaged and released as a PAF since it would support Vista through 10 out of the box.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

kmecke
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2018-05-23 18:15
No - .NET 2 wont work

Hi - well - challenging footer... WPF came with .NET 3.0 so I would be very surprised if 2.0 would be working. Having said that - on the next release I will compile it again with 4.0 Client profile. Before I targeted 4.6.1.

To answer your question - No - .NET 2 won't work - how bad is it if vista is not supported? Is there any alternative to get it into PAF?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Broadly Compatible .NET Apps

I've decided to term apps that can run on .NET 2 and 4 "Broadly Compatible .NET Apps" and release them alongside non-.NET apps as portable. They'll work on every Windows Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 machine unless someone has manually gone in and disabled .NET support. If an app only supports .NET 4, it won't work with Windows Vista or Windows 7 out of the box. Windows 7 didn't come with .NET 4 and originally didn't get it automatically. It only automatically updated to 3.5. It would get 4 if you specifically set it to install important updates as well as critical ones. I think that may have changed recently, though, so I'll have to check.

UPDATE: In checking, .NET 4.5 still seems to be a "Recommended" update but not an automatically-installed-for-everybody "Important" update for Windows 7 users. Could you target to .NET 3 (included in Vista and later) or 3.5 (included in 7 and later, and automatically updated to in Vista)? I think we could expand the broadly compatible definition to include apps that support 3 and 4. If you have it working under 3 and 4 and say so in the .config file, it should work out of the box on 7, 8, 8.1, 10 as well as Vista that's up to date.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

kmecke
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2018-05-23 18:15
got it done... 3.5 client profile

Hi John - sorry for the delay. The task was trickier than expected and I got distracted. So finally I got it running using 3.5 Client Profile. Whats the next step? Testing I guess... Well - I don't have any Vista machines available for testing.
Shall we move the conversation out of the forum?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Version

Package up a new version and I'll check it out and test it under Vista/clean 7 for you.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

kmecke
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2018-05-23 18:15
New Version

Sounds good! Github has the new build, sourceforge not yet
https://github.com/kmecke/WpfEyes
and grab the zip file...

Another question I have is the signature of the exe - do you have any recommandation on who and how to sign it? All protableApps exes have individual signatures?

You probably have some more comments after testing, please shoot them at me.

Br Kai

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Set to 2?

According to the config file, it's only set to 2. Does it work with 2? KeePass sets it to 2 and 4 using this:

<startup useLegacyV2RuntimeActivationPolicy="true">
<supportedRuntime version="v4.0" />
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.50727" />
</startup>

If yours works with 2 and 4 you could use the same. If 3 and 4, adjust accordingly.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

kmecke
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2018-05-23 18:15
Yes - those .NET versions are quite confusing

Well - I have seen this version attribute, but acctually visual studio sets it to this value (with a horrible xml layout). So I did not touch it...

Checking this page the value (v2...) should be correct for 3.5

I skipped the useLegacyV2RuntimeActivationPolicy, because I could not image it to work in v2 anyhow. So no legacy stuff for v2 needed...

While debugging, I ran into issues with the windows user32 lowlevel hooks I use for the mouse movement. It was running fine on 4.5, 3.5, 3.5 CP but not on 4.0 (I could not believe it - very starnage behavior)

Having said that - none of these values/attributes have an effect on my test machines (W10). It is running fine with whatever is coming in the exe.config ... I will test on W7 next week, but I am curious what you observe on e.g. Vista et al.

I was using without rebuild:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<configuration>
    <startup>     
		<supportedRuntime version="v4.0" />
		<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.50727" sku="Client" />
	</startup>
</configuration>
Log in or register to post comments