Snipping tool and window borders


  • area_deu

    Continuing the discussion from In which @accalia's queen wooshes again?:

    @aliceif said:

    FUCKING HELL WINDOWS 7.

    WHY CAN'T YOU GET WINDOWS RIGHT?!

    This just beyond irritates me:

    I use snipping tool, select the chrome window and stuff outside it gets cut with it.

    But it gets worse:
    Even while selecting the window, the red borders do not match up at all.



  • @aliceif said:

    But it gets worse:

    The suspense is killing me


  • BINNED

    @aliceif said:

    But it gets worse:

    Next thing you try does nothing?


  • area_deu

    Well, i thought I could upload a photo from my phone, but it's too large for discourse.


  • SockDev

    ..... this should be interesting. now i want to see that photo!


  • area_deu


    The red border reaches into the other screen. And Chrome is maximized.



  • Maybe that’s an issue with Chrome’s custom border drawing code... Do other windows work normally ?


  • area_deu

    Firefox doesn't work properly.
    Visual Studio doesn't properly.
    Outlook doesn't properly.
    I think everything doesn't.



  • What does alt-PrintScreen do? It could be Chrome doing stupid shit with its own window.

    Although I don't have the problem on my Windows 8 machine. Not with Snipping Tool, or alt-PrintScreen.


  • SockDev

    hu-uh.

    well Chrome is full of so many WTFs because of their insistence on doing the window chrome themselves, rather than letting windows get on with it.



  • Oh yeah. That stupid little rectangle they shove the user name into could not look more wrong.


  • area_deu


    TIL.
    Thanks, blakey!



  • TIL snipping tool has a window selection mode. The dropdown arrow really should've tipped me off that there may be more than the rectangular selection.



  • @aliceif said:

    TIL.

    TIL what?

    @hungrier said:

    TIL snipping tool has a window selection mode.

    If you're going to take a screenshot of a window, why would you even bother with Snipping Tool? That's significantly more work than just hitting Alt-PrintScreen.


  • area_deu

    Alt + PrintScr. I never heard of it until you told me about it.


  • SockDev

    because you might want to annotate it and snipping tool lets you do it directly instead of pasting into $PAINT_PROGRAM first?



  • That's the actual outer border of the window. Windows just hides it.

    This decoupling of logical and physical characteristics permits all sorts of visual tricks. The visual trick relevant here is the removal of the overhang borders from a maximized window. The borders are still there: If you call GetWindowRect, you will get the same coordinates you always did. But they don't appear on the screen. The sliver is gone.


  • @blakeyrat said:

    If you're going to take a screenshot of a window, why would you even bother with Snipping Tool?

    Save time opening paint? Who knows. I've only ever used the rectangular selection.



  • It's in the help file: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/take-screen-capture-print-screen#take-screen-capture-print-screen=windows-8

    @Keith said:

    That's the actual outer border of the window. Windows just hides it.

    No it's not, because that doesn't happen on my computer. It's something specific to aliceif's setup. Or a bug in Snipping Tool, one of the two.

    @hungrier said:

    Save time opening paint? Who knows.

    Why would you use Paint when there's Paint.NET!?




  • area_deu

    Hmm.

    I have win7 enterprise, two screens with 1680*1050 resolution and some old 9xxx series nvidia card.
    Shouldn't be too out of the ordinary.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If you're going to take a screenshot of a window, why would you even bother with Snipping Tool? That's significantly more work than just hitting Alt-PrintScreen.

    I may bookmark this post.

    Has anyone found a git screenshot Easter egg?


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    No it's not

    uh.... yes it is.... there's about an 8 pixel overhang, has been for ages. yesterday's Old New Thing explains it (as @Keith posted)

    @blakeyrat said:

    Why would you use Paint when there's Paint.NET!?

    because it gets the job done when you don't need photochop? because lazy? because you can't due to not being a local admin to install?



  • @Keith said:

    Oh, and brand new:

    Wow, that is the most obvious "duuuuh" that Raymond Chen has ever answered, I think. Is there a person alive who didn't know that, or couldn't figure it out with 1.5 seconds of rational thought?



  • @accalia said:

    uh.... yes it is.... there's about an 8 pixel overhang, has been for ages. yesterday's Old New Thing explains it (as @Keith posted)

    Ooooo. Ok I'm a little slow. It is a bug in Snipping Tool. But it only happens on maximized windows. Which the OP doesn't mention at all, so it's no wonder I couldn't repro.


  • area_deu

    The photo from my phone mentioned it.
    Sorry for not explicitly mentioning it in the OP, though.



  • I'm actually kind of surprised that it's not a Chrome thing stemming from the cluster-mess that the idiots clowns monkeys Chrome UI team of idiots continue to perpetuate.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If you're going to take a screenshot of a window, why would you even bother with Snipping Tool?

    This. It does seem like unnecessary effort.


  • SockDev

    I do it quite regularly; I guess some just find it a little more convenient.

    <!-- Emoji'd by MobileEmoji 0.2.0-->


  • Speaking of proper clipping on screenshots, my Linux work machine has a Z-shaped dual-monitor setup, and the Xfce screenshot tool doesn’t bother removing the parts of the screen buffer that aren’t actually visible on the screen, so it shows garbage:

    (I have blurred some parts of the upper right garbage because is suspiciously looks like a window I had on my screen some time ago)



  • I've had people (Boomzilla?) tell me that the way Linux handles non-rectangular monitor setups is by just pretending they're rectangular and drawing garbage (or letting windows get lost) in the offscreen areas.

    Looks like that was 100% true, haha. WTF Linux!


  • area_deu

    Hilarious bug involving shitty Linux software:

    All libvte-based terminal emulators completely break when their window is fully pushed offscreen at some point.
    Some crash and close, others only show garbage when pulled back on-screen.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Looks like that was 100% true, haha. WTF Linux!

    Like I would lie to you? It's actually useful for stuff like spreading a VM or other remote session across screens.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I've had people (Boomzilla?) tell me that the way Linux handles non-rectangular monitor setups is by just pretending they're rectangular and drawing garbage (or letting windows get lost) in the offscreen areas.

    Quite so. When I first got such a setup, it didn't even prevent the mouse cursor from going into the areas that aren't mapped to an monitor. Windows correctly prevents this, and I think linux fixed it at some point, but nowadays I've got rectangular setups.

    Still neither windows nor linux is fond of a setup where the topleftmost pixel over all monitors isn't on the primary monitor.



  • Solution: Use Puush which actually works

    Note that solution doesn't work if you don't want to upload the screenshot.


  • SockDev

    @PleegWat said:

    Still neither windows nor linux is fond of a setup where the topleftmost pixel over all monitors isn't on the primary monitor.

    Never had an issue with that, not on XP, Vista, 7 or 8(.1).

    <!-- Emoji'd by MobileEmoji 0.2.0-->


  • @blakeyrat said:

    Or a bug in Snipping Tool

    It's this.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I've had people (Boomzilla?) tell me that the way Linux handles non-rectangular monitor setups is by just pretending they're rectangular and drawing garbage (or letting windows get lost) in the offscreen areas.

    Depends. My setup seems a tad more sensible - the black area to the bottom right is no-man's land on my setup; it's always black in screenshots and nothing can go there; anything attempting to go from bottom right on the left screen ends up bottom left on the right screen:



  • @PleegWat said:

    Still neither windows nor linux is fond of a setup where the topleftmost pixel over all monitors isn't on the primary monitor.

    Uh, huh? The only problem I've seen is it opens drop-down menus the wrong way. (They open to the left of the menu header, not to the right. Even when there's plenty of space to the right.)

    Is that what you mean by "isn't fond of?" Because it's a goddamned trivial bug, even by my exacting standards.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Like I would lie to you? It's actually useful for stuff like spreading a VM or other remote session across screens.

    That's a problem with the remote/VM software design, not a problem with the OS. If you can't spread a single VMWare desktop across non-rectangular screens, report it to them as a bug. Because it's their bug.



  • @PleegWat said:

    Still neither windows nor linux is fond of a setup where the topleftmost pixel over all monitors isn't on the primary monitor.

    My primary monitor is on the right. When I first boot, it thinks its on the left, but once I've logged in it fixes that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Because it's their bug.

    Is it? I can't tell, because what I do works pretty well.



  • Ok, so don't file a bug.

    The point remains, if VMWare (or whatever) is incapable of filling a non-rectangular screen setup when set to "full screen mode", that's a bug on their part. Not Windows'.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The point remains, if VMWare (or whatever) is incapable of filling a non-rectangular screen setup when set to "full screen mode", that's a bug on their part. Not Windows'.

    I use it in neither full screen mode nor in Windows.



  • Ok, so don't file a bug. What do you want from me?


  • mod

    I think it's an issue with maximized windows. Works fine if the window isn't maximized.

    Edit: Hanzo'd


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    I've had people (Boomzilla?) tell me that the way Linux handles non-rectangular monitor setups is by just pretending they're rectangular and drawing garbage (or letting windows get lost) in the offscreen areas.

    I'm pretty sure that at the hardware level Windows does the same thing, it's just the window manager fixes that up for you in an abstraction layer above the hardware.

    I seem to recall a discussion about graphics cards back when 4k monitors were first coming out that explained that certain monitor arrangements with those things couldn't be supported because the monitors didn't fit on the virtual framebuffer or something like that....

    /me wanders off to see if i can find that discussion again



  • @accalia said:

    I'm pretty sure that at the hardware level Windows does the same thing, it's just the window manager fixes that up for you in an abstraction layer above the hardware.

    Ok?

    At long as it fucking works, who cares?

    @accalia said:

    I seem to recall a discussion about graphics cards back when 4k monitors were first coming out that explained that certain monitor arrangements with those things couldn't be supported because the monitors didn't fit on the virtual framebuffer or something like that....

    I recall reading back in the day there was like a 65,536 x 65,536 pixel limitation. You'd still need quite a few 4k monitors to make a rectangle that size. (Also it might have been fixed years ago, my memory is vague.)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I recall reading back in the day there was like a 65,536 x 65,536 pixel limitation.

    You might start to run into problems at half that when you hit the limits of a signed short (dimensions might be happy larger, but you also want to talk about the coordinates themselves). But even with 4k monitors, getting to that sort of size requires a heroically-large desk, and the monitor budget to go with it. Given that, it's not really been a high-priority for most graphics subsystem developers to fix.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I recall reading back in the day there was like a 65,536 x 65,536 pixel limitation.

    I believe that is still true. Considering things like WM_MOUSEMOVE's use of LPARAM. (And remembering that LOWORD(lParam) won't work properly for negative spaces)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.