.IF did any admin or mod deleted my thread == TRUE
did i do something wrong, if so please tell (pm) me i don't want to screw again
vbulletin is buggy and deleted the thread

the reason i bothered 'repost' all this here is because someone might have the same problems as i had in the future, so a search will help them
thanks to the person who helped me out :alright:
i just wonder why my thread has vanished :(

i was trying to use MoveFileEx, but i was unable to it always returned error, so to see what was wrong i used:
GetLastError - eax = 78
FormatMessage - "This function is only valid in Win32 mode"

then i thought, well maybe it's because my code is not using all APIs that also work on NT or XP, the "API_name_plus_Ex"
the person(don't remember his nick) who replied the thread(i read just before it was deleted) told that MoveFileEx doen't work on 98; thanks for cleraring this fog on my mind :) and also he cleared my stupid idea that my code has to use the API_Ex instead of API to work on NT or XP

because of that i tried to replace the code, when reached VirtualAlloc i tried to replace with VirtualAllocEx, but wrongly again correct by the same person i must call GetCurrentProcess instead of GetCurrentProcessId to get the handle to use its value as paramater to VirtualAllocEx

another thing in XXXX*** instead of VirtualAllocEx it appeared FillconsoleoutputCharacterW, this is strange and the way to fix it is with the "exp" directive
the same person helped me with this, thanks again :)
Posted on 2002-09-22 08:49:14 by kr0n0
I can't restore your post, kr0n0, only mine. Here it is:

kr0n0, with which func do you have problems?
It's not clear from your post why you should call VirtualAlloc.

GetCurrentProcessId function returns the process identifier, NOT process handle.
You can't pass that value to VirtualAllocEx.
To get pseudohandle for the current process use GetCurrentProcess.
But if you try to get handle of your process, i guess you want allocate memory from it.
In this case no reason to call VirtualAllocEx, because of:
"The difference between the VirtualAllocEx function and the VirtualAlloc function is that VirtualAlloc allocates memory within the address space of the calling process, while VirtualAllocEx lets you specify a process."

As for MoveFileEx. My MSDN tells me that this function:
"Windows 95/98: Unsupported."

...when debugging it (chuck it!) doens't apper any VirtualAllocEx but instead


I had similar problems with chuck it! under w9x many times, but can't remember the root of this problem.
Most of the times it mistackes with func names i guess, but not shure.
In chuck it! you can use exp command to fetch exported symbols that chuck it! can

It can help you to decide in which function you are.
exp virtualalloc
displays entryes for all VirtuAlalloc* functions.

It may be better to post your code snippet here.
This way we can understand your problem better.

did i do something wrong, if so please tell (pm) me i don't want to screw again

Don't understand why this happend. I have just re-read the rules and couldn't see any one that we have not respected.
The only reason i guess is reference to most powerful debugger (you know i mean ;))
Dunno why, but people here don't like it much.
If you don't want the same happend with your post again, i guess you should immediately remove any reference to it from your post.

And now what about your problems. Have you any?
Posted on 2002-09-22 09:48:23 by Four-F

The only reason i guess is reference to most powerful debugger (you know i mean ;))
Dunno why, but people here don't like it much.

Because 95%+ of the used SICE versions are warezed.
Posted on 2002-09-22 10:31:05 by bazik
OK. Then this restriction should be added into rules, i think, because of FAQ reading is facultative, but rules are indispensable.
If there is nothing about it in the rules, i hope you will agree with me, it's very strange situation:
You (if it was you), or other moderator, deleted post of the member who haven't contravened any rule, but only haven't read FAQ!!!
BTW, FAQ is too big, you know.
Posted on 2002-09-23 02:33:24 by Four-F