SystemParametersInfo: Screen Save actions

Francois Gouget fgouget at
Fri Nov 16 12:40:55 CST 2001

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:

> --- Andreas Mohr <andi at> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 07:22:39AM -0800, Andriy
> > Palamarchuk wrote:
> > > Change log:
> > > 
> > > SystemParametersInfo. Implemented processing for
> > > SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVERRUNNING. Removed integration
> > > with X Window screen saving.
> > Hmm, why did you remove X11 screen saving completely
> > ??
> Andreas, I had a discussion with Alexandre how we are
> going to integrate system parameters/system metrics
> with X settings. The decision we came to was to make 
> system parameters independent from X settings by
> default. This is why I removed the code, not just
> fixed it.
> Look at the discussion in a couple of threads on
> wine-devel with "SystemParametersInfo ..." in subject.
> The summary of the approach is also in comments to
> SystemParametersInfoA in windows/sysparams.c
> > I guess I should do it...
> I assumed that in this case there was no strong reason
> for such integration.

   I don't know for SETSCREENSAVETIMEOUT but an application would want

   SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE seems to be typically used by movie
players. Imagine, you start palying a DVD, relax, and every five minutes
the screensaver kicks in. This is why many movie players disable the
screensaver when you start playing the movie and restore its initial
state when the movie is finished. This is the case of mplayer for
instance (and yes, it's a pain if they crash).
   I don't see why we should prevent Windows applications from doing so.
Similarly, SPI_GETSCREENSAVERRUNNING could be used by an application to
stop its slide-show since noone will be able to see it. But actually, it
now occurs to me that it may also be used by distributed-computing
applications to know when to start their computations (for those that
are not screen-savers).
   SPI_SETSCREENSAVERRUNNING seems pure evil though (and according to
the doc applications are not supposed to use it anyway).

   In fact, I disagree with Alexandre when he says:

> If users want to reconfigure X behavior, they have to use the X
> configuration programs.

   I think Wine is about more than just running Windows applications on
Linux. It's about integrating Windows and Linux applications and thus
they should be able to manipulate these kind of settings. Otherwise Wine
would only support the 'desktop mode' or it would not exist at all and
everyone would be happy with running Windows in a sand-box ala VMWare.

   So it may make sense to maintain some parameters separately from the
X settings (especially when their is not corresponding X setting), but I
think the above parameters should be 100% backed by the corresponding X

Francois Gouget         fgouget at
  Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable from Linux

More information about the wine-devel mailing list