On the Bridge wrote:

> I have blocked that idiot.. but calling midi files as streaming good sound
> makes me think that
> he must me something like 5 years old or a total moron, probably both.
>
Both.

Cheers.

--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:10 -0500, AlexB wrote:

> sndPlaySound is just a function in winmm.dll. It is not an API.

Yes, it is an API. It is a Win32 API. You will fibnd it in the list of
ALL API calls.


> This is a quote from MS:
>
> sndPlaySound
> The sndPlaySound function plays a waveform sound specified either by a
> file name or by an entry in the registry or the WIN.INI file. This
> function offers a subset of the functionality of the PlaySound function;
> sndPlaySound is being maintained for backward compatibility.
>
>
> I used playSound in one of my projects which I debugged but never been
> able to bring to running. I realized that I could do what I wanted with
> soundRecorder.exe.
>
> The reason that sndPlaySound is not an API is simple. For this very
> reason it cannot be used to play sound alone. In order to play sound you
> have to check if the audio devices (audio card) is available, you have
> to open them up.

No, all you have to do is make the one function call.

> You have to specify at leas half a dozen parameters,
> set those values in structures which will be used by sndPlaySound.

BOOL sndPlaySound(
LPCTSTR lpszSound,
UINT fuSound
);

You have to specify 2 parameters.

> You
> have to INITIALIZE the devices.

No, you just call the one function.

> For this there are also separate
> methods. The whole aggregate of those preliminary functions
> (actions/methods) plus sndPlaySound is an API which in our case is WMP.
> There is no way around it. All roads lead to Rome.
>
> You are wrong that it is an overkill. It is not. It is the least labor
> intensive way to achieve what I want.

So yes....over kill. Why instantiate a WMP object to play a simple sound,
when you can achieve the same results with one single functoin call.











>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4BC0EF1EC52thisnthatroadrunnerc@207.46.2 48.16...
>> "AlexB" <alexb@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:u90rSJJdIHA.4728@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> The Windows Media Player is an API or rather can be used as such. I
>>> play my own recorded messages (my own voice recorded with
>>> SoundRecorder.exe/sndRec32.exe) via Windows Media Player. The WMP
>>> never shows up on my desktop. I make calls from inside my code with a
>>> parameter that prohibits it from appearance. It is a very commend
>>> technique. For me WMP is an API. It is not an API for you or anyone
>>> else who use is as a stand alone application. I use voice as
>>> punctuation points and as alerts that certain processes went thru OK
>>> or there were problems.
>>
>> WMP *EXPOSES* an API, but it is not called an API. It is a program.
>>
>> And if all you are doing is playing pre-recorded sounds, using the WMP
>> API is waaaaaaaay overdoing it
>> because you can play wav files with one single Win32 API call....
>>
>> sndPlaySound which is exported from winmm.dll
>>

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:19:15 -0500, AlexB wrote:

> You don't speak good English, On The Bridge. This passage below betrays
> you as a foreigner. English is foreign to you. You translate.

AlexB = Pot

DS wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:19:15 -0500, AlexB wrote:
>
>> You don't speak good English, On The Bridge. This passage below betrays
>> you as a foreigner. English is foreign to you. You translate.
>
> AlexB = Pot

More like Jim Beam.

Alias

>>> You don't speak good English, On The Bridge. This passage below
>>> betrays you as a foreigner. English is foreign to you. You translate.
>>
>> AlexB = Pot
>
> More like Jim Beam.

No...not that pot. Maybe that's what the aB needs !!!!!

But I meant, 'the pot', as in 'the pot calling the kettle black'

And aB's post above doesn't contain the best grammar either.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:20:55 -0800, Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On the Bridge wrote:
>>>>> WINAMP has a very nice streaming radio station thing called
>>>>> shoutcast...with all kinds of music...
>>>>>
>>>>> after you download and install winamp from www.winamp.com
>>>>>
>>>>> see this screenshot on how to access the radio stations
>>>>>
>>>>> http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/9757/ffffp6.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu has a really nice program called StreamTuner with works with
>>>> StreamRipper which can be used to record songs off Internet radio and
>>>> it converts them into MP3s and has a lot more channels than
>>>> Shoutcast, although it has Shoutcast too. The USA is one of the few
>>>> countries in the world that prohibit this practice. In Spain, it's
>>>> completely legal for personal use.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully, Obama will restore the civil rights that were stripped
>>>> away by the Bush/Cheney nightmare.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>> Oh please, it's always a laugh to hear from someone outside the US
>>> with their oh so important blabber. Go ahead and list those "civil
>>> rights" that were stripped away.
>>
>> Let's see, how about the fact that if you're considered to be a
>> terrorist you are
>>
>> 1. not llowed legal counsel
>>
>> 2. not charged
>>
>> 3. held in custody indefinitely
>>
>>
> Oh, I see. You want to make sure that terrorists have their civil
> rights. Yes, we wouldn't want to take that away from them, when they
> want to take away your LIFE. And you want to blame that on Bush. Maybe
> it's because no other president had to deal with the likes of 9-11. Just
> what I thought, your "civil rights" issue is a non-issue, unless you're
> a terrorist of course.

Terry, the problem with the Patriot Act has little to do with protecting
the terrorists 'rights'. The whole thing was the way it was thrown
together in haste, and put through into law so quickly. So much of the
terminology is written in such a broad way, that the interpretations can
be stretched quite a bit to suit whatever the scenario d'joure is.

You don't need to be the stereotypical 'terrorist' for the special laws
in the Patriot Act to be applied to you.

Here's a good read:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general...s20030403.html

But listen, I'm not saying that terrorism isn't a threat, I'm just not
one to subscribe to the 'I've got nothing to hide so go ahead and do what
you want' mentality. And I'm not saying that we as individual's are more
important than the security of the nation. There needs to be a happy
medium.

DS wrote:
>>>>You don't speak good English, On The Bridge. This passage below
>>>>betrays you as a foreigner. English is foreign to you. You translate.
>>>
>>>AlexB = Pot
>>
>>More like Jim Beam.
>
>
> No...not that pot. Maybe that's what the aB needs !!!!!
>
> But I meant, 'the pot', as in 'the pot calling the kettle black'
>
> And aB's post above doesn't contain the best grammar either.

Let's get something right now DS (what does DS stand for?). This is an
international Microsoft Vista ng. As such spelling, language & grammar
and usage are rather irrelevant. If a poster can successfully convey
their message, then that is all that is needed. In fact, those who
pretend to be proficient in a language and try to divert the subject
matter based on correcting the language of another poster, are usually
doing so because they have been caught in a lie! You cannot cover up a
lie with proper language usage, grammar or spelling.
A spade is always a spade.
Live by these realities and you'll do just fine.
Frank