"jmichae3" <jmi### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> c:\povray-master\libraries\png\projects\vstudio\readme.txt
> c:\povray-master\libraries\tiff\libtiff\tif_error.c
> these 2 files would not extract from the povray-master.zip
> and because the file structures are so deep, some may be past the 255-character
> NTFS filepath length maximum.
> I noticed it's safer to extract to root.

Argh, you seem to be a constant source of wrong information. The limit for NTFS
is 2^15-1, but  Explorer and old Win32 API ars stuck at the 260 limit. This has
at last been fixed in Windows 10, but still a path longer than 260 characters
can be created and used in Vista. It will be invisible in Explorer though, and
you must use tools using the wide character APIs to access them.

The real question though: Is there a specific reason why you must use Vista? -
You will likely run into trouble compiling POV-Ray as Visual Studio 2013 lists
Windows 7 as minimum requirement ... and you will be stuck with an old and
outdated Visual Studio.

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.09.2016 um 15:38 schrieb jmichae3:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 09.09.2016 um 05:20 schrieb jmichae3:
>>> as it turns out, shortcut points to wrong exe. shounld not be the sse version,
>>> just 32.
>>
>> No, the SSE2 version should run fine on your machine; but the installer
>> incorrectly links to `pvengine-sse2.exe`, when in fact the executable is
>> named `pvengine32-sse2.exe`.
>>
>> It's a known issue, with a known workaround, but a fixed installer
>> hasn't been released so far.
> 
> I could not find that section of code in github. could not find the installer
> source.

POV-Ray does not use a proprietary installer, so there is no installer
source in the conventional sense to be found in the POV-Ray project.
There is nothing but a single script, `setup.nsi`, for the Nullsoft
Scriptable Install System (NSIS).

Note that the script is not the original one used to re-produce the
official POV-Ray installer (nor does the script even work "out of the
box"). It is provided specifically to enable users to produce derivative
works, while at the same time minimizing the risk that such derivative
works may (1) be mistaken for official versions of the official
software, (2) interfere with the proper operation of official versions
installed on the same system, or (3) interfere with the support services
Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty Ltd. provides for official versions.

> why not make that change right now?

I can't comment on that. Both the decison and technical process to
produce and distribute official releases is ultimately up to Chris Cason.

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.09.2016 um 17:04 schrieb jmichae3:
> c:\povray-master\libraries\png\projects\vstudio\readme.txt
> c:\povray-master\libraries\tiff\libtiff\tif_error.c
> these 2 files would not extract from the povray-master.zip

Since the zip files are generated by GitHub, certainly using the same
piece of software to create source code packages for thousands of other
open source projects on a daily basis, I would presume that this is a
problem of whatever software you are using to unzip the package. At any
rate, it is entirely out of our hands.

Fortunately for you, there are numerous well-tried unpacking tools out
there, such as 7zip.

> and because the file structures are so deep, some may be past the 255-character
> NTFS filepath length maximum.
> I noticed it's safer to extract to root.

Well, yes -- if you're extracting to a directory _already_ over 150
characters long, then you might find that to pose a problem...

To the best of my knowledge (based on the results of a shell script just
a few minutes ago), the longest path in the current master branch does
not exceed 102 characters.


Give us a break here, and do give us the benefit of doubt that we might
not be responsible for your problems after all. Otherwise you may find
out the hard way that, legally speaking, we indeed aren't, and that your
problems are exactly that: YOUR problems (as per section 15 of the AGPL3).

Post a reply to this message

another problem. after 1 successful run of pvengine.exe, can no longer run
pvengine.exe, even with a reboot.
"[Microsoft Windows]
POV-Ray for Windows v3.7 has stopped working
A problem caused the program to stop woring correctly.
Please close the program.
[->Close the program]"
and this is the same bug I see when I run good programs compiled with gcc lately
(iostream/fstream bugs?)

eventvwr says
Faulting application pvengine.exe, version 3.7.0.0, time stamp 0x524040f9,
faulting module pvengine.exe, version 3.7.0.0, time stamp 0x524040f9, exception
code 0xc0000005, fault offset 0x000c7ae8, process id 0x8f8, application start
time 0x01d20aede3bdfcd0.

0xc0000005 as listed in ntstatus.h is an access violation (out of bounds).

Post a reply to this message

"jmichae3" <jmi### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> another problem. after 1 successful run of pvengine.exe, can no longer run
> pvengine.exe, even with a reboot.
> "[Microsoft Windows]
> POV-Ray for Windows v3.7 has stopped working
> A problem caused the program to stop woring correctly.
> Please close the program.
> [->Close the program]"
> and this is the same bug I see when I run good programs compiled with gcc lately
> (iostream/fstream bugs?)

As I already mentioned, POV-Ray for Windows is compiled with Visual C, not gcc!

However, did it occur to you that if other programs are malfuctioning on your
computer that the source of the problems will be your computer and not a sudden
defect of several programs you are running? -- Your computer is broken and you
need to get it fixed, or better yet, replaced.

Nobody will be able to help you if different programs on your computer crash.
The programs are fine. This is not a bug in any of those programs, it is a
problem with your computer!

Given this is the fourth bogus message in a row

*plonk*


<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)>

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.09.2016 um 01:05 schrieb jmichae3:
> another problem. after 1 successful run of pvengine.exe, can no longer run
> pvengine.exe, even with a reboot.
> "[Microsoft Windows]
> POV-Ray for Windows v3.7 has stopped working
> A problem caused the program to stop woring correctly.
> Please close the program.
> [->Close the program]"
> and this is the same bug I see when I run good programs compiled with gcc lately
> (iostream/fstream bugs?)

It's an obvious plot between the people behind the GNU Compiler
Collection (gcc), the folks behind Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 (used to
build POV-Ray 3.7.0), and of course the people behind POV-Ray, who all
back in 2010 conspired to make your life miserable in 2016.


As Thorsten already mentioned, you may want to consider the possibility
that your computer suffers from a CPU defect. Such defects may present
with quite obscure symptoms, for instance they may be triggered by a
certain sequence of instructions that normally happens to be generated
only by particular compilers or maybe even particular compiler versions.

Such defects may be intrinsic to the CPU type, which is actually pretty
common with modern CPUs. In that case, a BIOS update may solve the
problem by providing patched microcode for the CPU.

Other defects may be the result of wear. CPUs do age over time, and
frequently operating a CPU at its limits will drastically speed up this
aging process, to the point that it may show sporadic malfunctions under
certain conditions -- sometimes rather vague, sometimes very specific.

As an example, we once(*) had a report on these newsgroups of POV-Ray
producing strange stray white pixels in the output image; after some
research, it turned out that this guy had apparently been operating his
CPU (also some AMD, btw) without adequate cooling, and while the CPU
appeared to still be fine to do other things, it did fail sporadically
but frequently while executing POV-Ray, littering the output with ramdom
white pixels. Replacing the CPU solved the issue. (*Until the same
person burned out the replacement CPU as well.)

Post a reply to this message

> As an example, we once(*) had a report on these newsgroups of POV-Ray
> producing strange stray white pixels in the output image; after some
> research, it turned out that this guy had apparently been operating his
> CPU (also some AMD, btw) without adequate cooling, and while the CPU
> appeared to still be fine to do other things, it did fail sporadically
> but frequently while executing POV-Ray, littering the output with ramdom
> white pixels. Replacing the CPU solved the issue. (*Until the same
> person burned out the replacement CPU as well.)
>

   Yep... that was me. :) And yes, the CPUs where AMD Athlon X2 in both 
cases.

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

> > As an example, we once(*) had a report on these newsgroups of POV-Ray
> > producing strange stray white pixels in the output image; after some
> > research, it turned out that this guy had apparently been operating his
> > CPU (also some AMD, btw) without adequate cooling, and while the CPU
> > appeared to still be fine to do other things, it did fail sporadically
> > but frequently while executing POV-Ray, littering the output with ramdom
> > white pixels. Replacing the CPU solved the issue. (*Until the same
> > person burned out the replacement CPU as well.)
> >
>
>    Yep... that was me. :) And yes, the CPUs where AMD Athlon X2 in both
> cases.
>
> --
> jaime

Thus:

"Heat sinks are crucially important for render performance, so keep up
the work! ;)"

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3C57a0eced%241%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C57a0eced%241%40news.povr
ay.org%3E

:D

BTW, we have room for you up here in New Hampshire - the (not recent) weather
ought to be great for your CPU's.  :)

Post a reply to this message

> BTW, we have room for you up here in New Hampshire - the (not recent)
> weather ought to be great for your CPU's.  :)

   Don't worry... after those incidents, I take now much more care about
my heatsinks and the air flow inside the case. And I don't mind burning
a CPU every two years if I can avoid your cold winters. :)


--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.09.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:

>> BTW, we have room for you up here in New Hampshire - the (not recent)
>> weather ought to be great for your CPU's.  :)
> 
>   Don't worry... after those incidents, I take now much more care about
> my heatsinks and the air flow inside the case. And I don't mind burning
> a CPU every two years if I can avoid your cold winters. :)

I would prefer other fuels though ;)

Post a reply to this message