Calibre 2.0 Crashing at start up

[theducks]

Is this just an XP problem (Linux Calibre will still update) or is it Hardware related like the lack of SSE2 (I have an old AMD Athelon that stopped running Sigil because of no SSE2).

As far as I can tell, W8 will not run on a P4 (only has SSE2), of which I have 3 systems (1 uses RDRAM )

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by nataltom

Hello

Thank you for your reply.

I made an installation on another machine also installed xp and there does it work correctly. The version will stop working the same 29/8 on computers that work properly?

Is there still a way to make the program run under XP?

The problem is that there will be too many XP systems where it doesn't work properly that support would be a nightmare. Is it worth the hassle? Obviously not. The solution is to upgrade from XP and make sure the processor supports SSE2. If it doesn't support SSE2, then it may be time to upgrade the computer as well as the OS. Time doesn't stand still and neither does software.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by theducks

Is this just an XP problem (Linux Calibre will still update) or is it Hardware related like the lack of SSE2 (I have an old AMD Athelon that stopped running Sigil because of no SSE2).

As far as I can tell, W8 will not run on a P4 (only has SSE2), of which I have 3 systems (1 uses RDRAM )

Windows 7 will run with a P4.

[kovidgoyal]

Qt 5 requires SSE2. It is possible to compile it so that it does not use SSE2, but then everyone will have worse performance to support a few ancient computers. It is not possible to get Qt 5 to select whether to use SSE2 at runtime, it has to be at compile time.

[nataltom]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Qt 5 requires SSE2. It is possible to compile it so that it does not use SSE2, but then everyone will have worse performance to support a few ancient computers. It is not possible to get Qt 5 to select whether to use SSE2 at runtime, it has to be at compile time.

Hello

Sure I can understand that managing all operating systems is not easy.
For my part, I keep XP for now because it is a system that is perfect for me and my computer migrate to another OS, I'm not sure that it allows. It faudarit I certainly change my computer. I'll think about it.

An idea comes to mind.

Would it be possible to release a version 2 template compiled differently for older OS user so that he can also use the new version, but with perhaps less functionality.

I do not know what you think?

[kovidgoyal]

I'm afraid not, the problems on XP go beyond SSE2. There have been reports of crashes on XP computers with SSE2 as well.

[nataltom]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I'm afraid not, the problems on XP go beyond SSE2. There have been reports of crashes on XP computers with SSE2 as well.

Thank you for feedback.
I will have to stay on the 1.48 release or change computer

[JSWolf]

I don't get what the loyalty to Windows XP is. It's not supported and Windows 7/8.1 are both faster. Other then non-SSE2 processors, there's no reason not to upgrade.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't get what the loyalty to Windows XP is. It's not supported and Windows 7/8.1 are both faster. Other then non-SSE2 processors, there's no reason not to upgrade.

The upgrade costs a fair amount of money ($70 or so), which for many people is sufficient unto itself to stay with what one has.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by chaley

The upgrade costs a fair amount of money ($70 or so), which for many people is sufficient unto itself to stay with what one has.

It is more than $70. (That appears to be the upgrade from Vista price). W7 retail is $100+ at Walmart. You need a new install if you jump from XP to W7.

Many programs will need updates as there are incompatible with W7 or the license is not movable. Lots of $$$ to replace those


DOS programs that (still) ran under XP (supporting, Archival/Historical data) fail to start under W7.

Lots of businesses are still deploying NEW systems running XP pro ( I just finished installing over 24 Photo lab systems that have the familiar 'XP' while booting.)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by chaley

The upgrade costs a fair amount of money ($70 or so), which for many people is sufficient unto itself to stay with what one has.

Meh. For $70, I can get two midrange dinners here. (Just the dinners, no appetizer, dessert, drinks.... and so on.) I'd rather have a supported OS that lasts for another 6 years (Win7) or 10 (Win8. 1). If Windows 9 is worth it (rumors, release spring 2015), I might even upgrade this 6 old computer so it'll be supported up to 2025. (Build date: June 27, 2008. CPU dual to quad, GPU, SSD and Vista to 7 upgrade: Sept 15, 2011.)

[JSWolf]

How many are sticking with XP for some software that you have to run that does not run on Windows 8? How many don't have SSE2 capable processors that are on XP?

The thing is, if you don't upgrade from XP, you'll either be stuck on Calibre 1.48 or Calibre 2.0. bought Windows 7 when Microsoft was giving it out at half price. Windows 8 is only because it came with the computer.

[AnotherCat]

In my view claims that one will run into problems with XP era applications under Win 8 is in the main just smoke. Some of my old applications were the likes of real time software modems for a wide variety of communications protocols, positioning, etc., so not just the run of the mill stuff, and when I tried those they all ran fine. Most things ran obviously faster.

In the unlikely event one has a special purpose XP application that is locked to a specific operating system in order to protect its security or stability, as I did, I found on a Win 8 machine with the application installed on a virtual XP machine, that from power on, through starting the virtual machine and application start was actually faster than power on through to application started on a bare XP machine. Whereas previously using a virtual XP machine with Win 7 was so slow in starting that it was not worth doing.

I won't get into hardware except to say everything that ran under Win 7 ran fine for me (in fact better in some instances, and in the case of some XP era serial converters that had not worked under Vista and Win 7 they started working again with Win 8), and that for XP era hardware using consumables it can likely be replaced with new for less than the cost of a set of consumables for the old).

[JSWolf]

If anyone is not bothering to switch from XP to Win 8.1 because of the lack of a proper desktop, fear not, I run Win 8.1 using Classic Desktop and it looks/feels like Win 7. You can even configure the start menu to look like it did under XP.

[BetterRed]

Rant Warning
{

In the past couple of days I read a post on this issue from an invalid pensioner, who is probably on a fixed income. A $100 bucks for a new version of Windows not to mention the hardware it needs, might mean he/she don't eat for a week.

Or maybe their aged care provider takes 90% of their pension, so if they want to get new Windows, then for a few months they'll have to forego their once a week trip to see a movie and have a coffee & chocolate.

Then there's the folks who live in Dacca, Guangzhou, or a Rio favela who earn $10 a day.
Little wonder they pirate so much software when they have to pay US/EU prices; assuming they can get it, which in some countries they can't - eg Trinidad, Somalia...

}

BR