XP update?

[peacepilgrim]

I'm using XP machine, version 1.48 Calibre. The software offered me an automatic update, but I chose not to update. Should I allow the update? I was afraid the new version wouldn't work properly.

Also, I see a cover editor mentioned, but my version doesn't show this in the software. Is it available for 1.48 or for XP?

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by peacepilgrim

I'm using XP machine, version 1.48 Calibre. The software offered me an automatic update, but I chose not to update. Should I allow the update? I was afraid the new version wouldn't work properly.

Also, I see a cover editor mentioned, but my version doesn't show this in the software. Is it available for 1.48 or for XP?

@peacepilgrim - with XP you're more or less stuck on 1.48. There are workarounds that may work today, but who knows if they'll work tomorrow.

One alternative is to replace XP with one of the plethora of Linux based systems, but before you do that, you might first want to read this post from Kovid ==>> Calibre and Linux I don't think the situation has changed markedly since he wrote that.

Others will have differing opinions.

You should be able to find an ex-lease W7 system at the usual places for not much more than a Windows license. A new system won't cost much more, MS gives Windows away to OEM's if they configure Bing as default search - it can be easily unconfigured by the user.

BR

[eschwartz]

@BR -- what does a generic rant about developer-oriented frustrations have to do with anything? In fact, Kovid specifically pointed out that as an end-user it isn't a problem.


Anyway, you already stickied this thread, why not use it:
Sticky: Why can't I install the latest calibre on Windows XP?

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

@BR -- what does a generic rant about developer-oriented frustrations have to do with anything? In fact, Kovid specifically pointed out that as an end-user it isn't a problem.


Anyway, you already stickied this thread, why not use it:
Sticky: Why can't I install the latest calibre on Windows XP?

The post I linked to has

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

[Calibre on] Linux definitely has more problems than any other OS, when you consider the ratio of problems to number of users. Which is ironic, considering that I develop calibre on linux.

And

I have no idea how a non-technical person is ever going to maintain a stable and fully functional linux system.

BR

[eschwartz]

Mostly by relying on the stable-because-they-are-outdated distros, e.g. Ubuntu/Linux Mint -- which is what non-technical people do anyway.


There is a barrier to entry, though -- you have to at least have enough skill to install an OS from a DVD. Maybe that helps...





Anyway, that has nothing to do with calibre, just linux in general. Maybe you shouldn't take Kovid's word as gospel truth on the generic topic of the Linux Desktop.
Especially as I suspect his rant was actually motivated by continuing frustration over the patch-happy nature of many distros, which is a separate point (and why it is recommended to install the version distributed from calibre's website).

[JSWolf]

A number of XP machines run hardware that's not compatible with Calibre 2.x and would not work no matter if Linux was installed. The best thing to do is run the MS Windows 8.1 Upgrade Adviser to see if the system is capable of running Windows 8.1 64-bit. if it is, upgrade to Windows 10 64-bit and then you can install Calibre 2.x.

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/?LinkId=321548

[eschwartz]

A machine would have to be pretty old to not be hardware-compatible with calibre. SSE2 was introduced in 2001 by Intel, although AMD didn't implement it in their CPUs until 2003.
But many of those compatible machines will probably still fail the Upgrade Adviser.


And I am really confused at your explicit mention of 64-bit. I don't believe many XP systems were delivered on 64-bit processors

[eschwartz]

And technically speaking, those computers can run calibre too, if built against against a copy of Qt5 that was compiled without SSE2 support. Okay, performance might drop. But... old computer...


For that matter, my distro (ArchLinux) builds Qt5 without SSE2 on the 32-bit builds -- which means I suffer that selfsame "degraded performance". Haven't noticed a slowdown, really.

I believe Standard Operating Policy for linux distros is to build Qt5 that way. Of course, they also tend to patch calibre, so pick your poison.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

A machine would have to be pretty old to not be hardware-compatible with calibre. SSE2 was introduced in 2001 by Intel, although AMD didn't implement it in their CPUs until 2003.
But many of those compatible machines will probably still fail the Upgrade Adviser.


And I am really confused at your explicit mention of 64-bit. I don't believe many XP systems were delivered on 64-bit processors

XP was run mostly 32-bit. But there is no reason not to upgrade to 64-bit. 32-bit Windows only allows running 3 gigs of ram even if you have more installed.

As for the system, if it fails the adviser, than I suggest a new system.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

XP was run mostly 32-bit. But there is no reason not to upgrade to 64-bit. 32-bit Windows only allows running 3 gigs of ram even if you have more installed.

As for the system, if it fails the adviser, than I suggest a new system.

I suppose we are into land by now.


The only reason not to upgrade to 64-bit is... if you have a 32-bit processor. I'm sure people can make the decision themselves, no need to repeatedly harp on it.

As for System Advisor, you can suggest anything you want, but MS does not support old hardware past a certain point. This has nothing to do with the functionality of said hardware.
And some people don't want to throw out a perfectly good computer.

In a perfect world, which you seem to think exists, everyone would have the latest 64-bit capable computers produced in the last ~1 year. Amazing, another
Some people don't.

Your religious evangelism of "Windows", "64-bit", "new system", is tiresome. In addition to irrelevant.

...

Once again, all the options are laid out in the sticky, and people can choose for themselves.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

One alternative is to replace XP with one of the plethora of Linux based systems, but before you do that, you might first want to read this post from Kovid ==>> Calibre and Linux I don't think the situation has changed markedly since he wrote that.

Others my have differing opinions.

I have been running Calibre on Linux for quite a few years.
*If* you want to try, I suggest you use Mint Linux Xfce edition.
Computer that runs XP needs a lightweight Linux distribution, yet, you do not want to use anything exotic.

If you can borrow a hard disk to try it, why not give it a try?
You can also boot into Linux Mint Xfce from an installation media and have a look what it looks like, whether it is compatible with your hardware. Remove DVD or an USB stick and reboot the machine and you are back to XP.

[JSWolf]

The suggestions of people running XP moving to Linux is getting tired. If they wanted to run Linux, they would be. The reason to run the upgrade adviser is because it's what there to tell the user if upgrading is OK or not. What the user wants to do from there is up to the user. But if the user wants to run Calibre 2.x, then upgrading is recommended if the adviser says it;s OK to upgrade.

OP: I have XP and can only run Calibre 1.48
somoneelse: Run some distro of Linux

That's how these threads go.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And technically speaking, those computers can run calibre too, if built against against a copy of Qt5 that was compiled without SSE2 support. Okay, performance might drop. But... old computer...

Almost impossible.
Well not really. You can build Qt5 without SSE2 support easily enough. You just have to sacrifice WebKit in order to do so (which is a calibre deal-breaker).

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The suggestions of people running XP moving to Linux is getting tired. If they wanted to run Linux, they would be. The reason to run the upgrade adviser is because it's what there to tell the user if upgrading is OK or not. What the user wants to do from there is up to the user. But if the user wants to run Calibre 2.x, then upgrading is recommended if the adviser says it;s OK to upgrade.

OP: I have XP and can only run Calibre 1.48
somoneelse: Run some distro of Linux

That's how these threads go.

Why do you have a problem with that. it's the easiest and cheapest method for people to run latest version of calibre on their old pc's.
The recommendation to install linux is more feasible than your asking them to buying and installing Windows 10.1

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Almost impossible.
Well not really. You can build Qt5 without SSE2 support easily enough. You just have to sacrifice WebKit in order to do so (which is a calibre deal-breaker).

Are you sure about that?
As I said before -- most distros build on 32-bit without sse2, in order to support those processors without sse2.
Debian and Fedora build twice and ship both set of libs.
Arch only builds with --no-sse2
Gentoo uses USE flags for sse2.

No ArchLinux i686 computers will get sse2-enabled Qt5 from the repos, unless of course the Qt5 compile-time flag "--no-sse2" does not, in fact, guarantee an sse2-free build process. Yet, the distro-provided calibre does not crash as a result (with the sse2 warning). Nor does my source install fail to build or run.
And I have seen explicit discussion on the Gentoo forums where someone who couldn't run calibre, was able to run calibre after re-emerging Qt5 with the appropriate USE flag to disable sse2 (ther cpu didn't support sse2).