What I want is NOT to capture.. I want to make the system so that the image will not be captured when a screenshot is taken... However implementing a lock upon the PrintScreen key is not the ideal way... What I had in mind, is implementing it similar to how it works when a video is played on a PC with Hardware Acceleration on - the image is 'translucent' or something, so that it does not show up on the screenshot...

I'm posting just to let you know of a few 'updates'. I haven't changed the code yet, but I will soon enough, and I'll inform you then. At the moment: 1. 'shootName' is used but not in that code extract. It's in the same method, but it's set in a if...else situation, which is irrelevant :) 2. I'm not sure if this is my misconception or anything, but I had rather thought that if an object is set to null, this makes GC more likely/quickly to occur on that object, to release the resources occupied by it? If this is my mistake, than I'm glad to know :) 3. I'll check TempSaveStream() again to ensure that it's not causing the problem. Furthermore, I WILL ;) check the exception handling, due to the embarrassing exception handling I've implemented in the other conversation we've had ;P Besides, I will check certain properties in the ZipFile class, since, for instance, there is a particular property that once the child's finished, it also closes the parent zip. So it may be something along those lines :-O Thanks for taking the time :) I'll keep you informed

You're welcome. :) Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.

Hi, I don't know what problem you are having. One possibility is the (de)serializer is having an out-of-memory problem due to fragmentation in the large-object-heap. Why do you need serialization at all? Couldn't you use Bitmap.Save(NetworkStream) and new Bitmap(NetworkStream)? I don't like your scheme requiring a potentially large array that much. :) Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.

something like this? [pseudo C#] private bool GetNext(out TcpClient client) { client = null; while ((less than 2000 ms has elapsed) and (!TcpListener.Pending()) { Sleep a bit } if (TcpListener.Pending()) { client = TcpListener.AcceptTcpClient(); return true; } return false; } :badger:

I must say that that was really helpful...

Thanks about that... I'll check Part 1 you mentioned. However, with regards to Part 2, that would only improve the Server or the network bandwidth, but not the processing, since a lot of time is spent comparing... However, thanks for taking the time to answer... Please provide me with the possibilities of reducing the lines in the ScreenCapture method. Thanks!

You can never be sure that the message sent is recieved as one piece at the client. To be sure, you may use some Start and End indentifier for each message you send. At the client side, write a function which makes sure that stream is completely recieved and if not retrieve the remaining message from the next received. Manas Bhardwaj Please remember to rate helpful or unhelpful answers, it lets us and people reading the forums know if our answers are any good.

You welcome buddy :)

Trapper-Hell wrote: What I have currently implemented are simply the rename functions of folders in order to make them look like Control Panel / My Computer etc Deception is not a safe protection method... Trapper-Hell wrote: And then the attributes (setting them as hidden / system / read-only)... There is no read-only attribute on folders. Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.

Hi, I have the same problem.... Have you solved your problem? How? Please let me know..

Thanks a lot pal. Just what I was looking for!

Well, i only did this once and connected from the web, to my home network. Then to get it to connect to the right PC i had to put port forwarding on the router to send the connection to the right place. So its a bit of a pain connecting to a computer from outside the local network. The best answer i could find to the problem was to have a web server that both PC's connected to and then have the web server connected them. My current favourite word is: Nipple! -SK Genius