7 ms·

The thing (screenshot and all) was routine done in the 90s with all those fancy non-rectangular applications/demos/launchers [usually available on CDs that came

by xxs 3y ago

The thing (screenshot and all) was routine done in the 90s with all those fancy non-rectangular applications/demos/launchers [usually available on CDs that came w/ magazines]. They had transparent/alpha zones that copied the screen under them.

Maxion 3y ago
Ahh so THAT's how they did that!
- firebot 3y ago
  It depends. Windows can be set to shapes going back to like Windows 95, iirc. But alpha, specifically, would be faked at that point. Windows 2000 supported alpha for such things in a basic way, like XP. Vista with Aero and 7 then really expanded the themes and the window compositing.
anthk 3y ago
Back in the day terminals under Linux did that to fake transparency: they just copied a chunk of the root window (where you put some wallpaper) as the terminal background and applied an alpha layer if the user wanted a translucid color.
- onli 3y ago
  Fake transparency is still a thing, for desktops without compositor. Not only in terminals, but also in docks.
  - anthk 3y ago
    But docks work in a different way, such as XRender or just a PNG with an alpha layer. Much less expensive than copying a chunk of the backdrop and then "pasted" at your terminal background. Often docks will be able to show you the underlying windows behind it, even without compositing. But under the terminal with fake transparency you couldn't see another window behind it, just the backdrop part. I think X11 had some extensions to allow translucency too for software like oneko, xroach or such.
    - stavros 3y ago
      Why is it less expensive? Sounds like the exact same operation, except the OS is doing it.
      - anthk 3y ago
        No. XRender worked in a different way than ATerm/Eterm.
    - onli 3y ago
      From my experience this is wrong. If you set a transparent background in wxwidgets/gtk it will show you a grey background. And gtk3 even removed the ability to query the x background pixmap. So if there is better support for this at an X level, this is not available above. See https://github.com/onli/simdock/issues/11 https://github.com/onli/simdock/issues/11, and if there really are good alternative solutions I'd be happy for some help.
      - anthk 3y ago
        Ah, too bad then. So, lots of stuff got deprecated, I didn't notice that until right now. Still, there was another tech not querying the background pixmaps, but used from old X11 software to do non-rectangular windows. Oclock, maybe.
TonyTrapp 3y ago
Maybe some incompetent people did it that way, but 1-bit transparency was very well possible with native Windows APIs in the 90s (see SetWindowRgn). Later on (starting with Windows 2000 IIRC) it was also possible to have semi-transparent (alpha-blended) regions.
- stormking 3y ago
  Please educate yourself before you accuse people of incompetency. Of course it was about (pseudo) alpha blending because "smooth shadows" around everything became very popular in the late 90s.
- firebot 3y ago
  Not exactly. With 2000/XP you can set the entire window opacity. Still no gdi+ native. So regions were still just shapes(1bit mask). Trying to set a pre-multiplied bitmap to a window will just give you a brightened version(the multiplied version). Though there was some support for cursor shadow at this point, and the improved GDI heap really helped, making faking a window drop shadow actually pretty feasible. Vista and Aero is the first native support for Windows with alpha channels. I actually liked Vista. It worked just fine and wasn't unnecessarily reorganized. Plus the improvements to the OS threading model were excellent, which is why 7 is so incredibly rock solid, probably peak Windows.
- constantly 3y ago
  In a thread about “if it’s not stupid if it works” you accuse people of doing something “incompetent” by doing something ostensibly “stupid but works” but totally miss on what was even possible “non-stupidly.” There feels like some form of irony here.
  - TonyTrapp 3y ago
    Yes, obviously there a grain of irony in the reply. ;)
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
    I'm not convinced it works though. A screenshot would break any animations playing underneath

by xxs 3y ago

Maxion 3y ago

Ahh so THAT's how they did that!

firebot 3y ago
It depends. Windows can be set to shapes going back to like Windows 95, iirc. But alpha, specifically, would be faked at that point. Windows 2000 supported alpha for such things in a basic way, like XP. Vista with Aero and 7 then really expanded the themes and the window compositing.

anthk 3y ago

Back in the day terminals under Linux did that to fake transparency: they just copied a chunk of the root window (where you put some wallpaper) as the terminal background and applied an alpha layer if the user wanted a translucid color.

onli 3y ago
Fake transparency is still a thing, for desktops without compositor. Not only in terminals, but also in docks.
- anthk 3y ago
  But docks work in a different way, such as XRender or just a PNG with an alpha layer. Much less expensive than copying a chunk of the backdrop and then "pasted" at your terminal background. Often docks will be able to show you the underlying windows behind it, even without compositing. But under the terminal with fake transparency you couldn't see another window behind it, just the backdrop part. I think X11 had some extensions to allow translucency too for software like oneko, xroach or such.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Why is it less expensive? Sounds like the exact same operation, except the OS is doing it.
    - anthk 3y ago
      No. XRender worked in a different way than ATerm/Eterm.
  - onli 3y ago
    From my experience this is wrong. If you set a transparent background in wxwidgets/gtk it will show you a grey background. And gtk3 even removed the ability to query the x background pixmap. So if there is better support for this at an X level, this is not available above. See https://github.com/onli/simdock/issues/11 https://github.com/onli/simdock/issues/11, and if there really are good alternative solutions I'd be happy for some help.
    - anthk 3y ago
      Ah, too bad then. So, lots of stuff got deprecated, I didn't notice that until right now. Still, there was another tech not querying the background pixmaps, but used from old X11 software to do non-rectangular windows. Oclock, maybe.

TonyTrapp 3y ago

Maybe some incompetent people did it that way, but 1-bit transparency was very well possible with native Windows APIs in the 90s (see SetWindowRgn). Later on (starting with Windows 2000 IIRC) it was also possible to have semi-transparent (alpha-blended) regions.

stormking 3y ago
Please educate yourself before you accuse people of incompetency. Of course it was about (pseudo) alpha blending because "smooth shadows" around everything became very popular in the late 90s.
firebot 3y ago
Not exactly. With 2000/XP you can set the entire window opacity. Still no gdi+ native. So regions were still just shapes(1bit mask). Trying to set a pre-multiplied bitmap to a window will just give you a brightened version(the multiplied version). Though there was some support for cursor shadow at this point, and the improved GDI heap really helped, making faking a window drop shadow actually pretty feasible. Vista and Aero is the first native support for Windows with alpha channels. I actually liked Vista. It worked just fine and wasn't unnecessarily reorganized. Plus the improvements to the OS threading model were excellent, which is why 7 is so incredibly rock solid, probably peak Windows.
constantly 3y ago
In a thread about “if it’s not stupid if it works” you accuse people of doing something “incompetent” by doing something ostensibly “stupid but works” but totally miss on what was even possible “non-stupidly.” There feels like some form of irony here.
- TonyTrapp 3y ago
  Yes, obviously there a grain of irony in the reply. ;)
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
  I'm not convinced it works though. A screenshot would break any animations playing underneath