Calibre 2.0 Crashing at start up

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by mbovenka

This. Win7 works fine, and so does Win8.1 + Classic Shell (or similar utility).

Windows 8.1 works fine without the third party classic or other similar shells whose only purpose is to provide a comfort blanket for slow adapters.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Windows 8.1 works fine without the third party classic or other similar shells whose only purpose is to provide a comfort blanket for slow adapters.

Getting off-topic, but some of us are not slow adapters, but just hate the new interface. When my double boot - Linux/Windows 7 - dies, I will go exclusively Linux.

[mrmikel]

If it is such an issue, it is not hard at all to install ubuntu alongside Windows in a very small partition and install calibre there.

I do this not for calibre but for banking to avoid Windows problems.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If it was as easy as say running an installer, all the riffraff would do it, and Kovid would get a million bug reports that "calibre 2.x on XP just ate my library!!!"

How dare you refer to people who are not members of the Geek Nobility as 'riff raff'. You'd better make sure that your bank doesn't have OS/2 Warp stuffed into the back of its ATMs, can't imagine someone like you would want to use a hoi polloi bank.

Your statement accords with your affectation of the use of royal 'we' - you're an arrogant bourgeoisie snob, sir. Move to England, one day they might make you the Baron of Bedlam and give you an estate in the Vale.

BR

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Getting off-topic, but some of us are not slow adapters, but just hate the new interface. When my double boot - Linux/Windows 7 - dies, I will go exclusively Linux.

OK.

I take on board what you say and so am quite happy to change my claim to "third party classic or other similar shells whose only purpose is to provide a comfort blanket for slow adapters and those overcome with hate."

[chaley]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

OK.

I take on board what you say and so am quite happy to change my claim to "third party classic or other similar shells whose only purpose is to provide a comfort blanket for slow adapters and those overcome with hate."

Is it truly necessary to insult people who don't like the metro interface?

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by chaley

To further support eschwartz's comment: running from source requires that the installed calibre binary be compatible with the source. From time to time changes are made in source that are incompatible with calibre V(yesterday) and require calibre V(today) to be installed. Recognizing this situation takes some experience because the usual symptom is a strange crash. In addition, from time to time there are runtime library changes that fix bugs or add features. The ICU library changes over time are a good example.

Couple this with the fact that calibre now refuses to install on XP as well as refuses to run. This means that as soon as the next calibre runtime changes for whatever reason, XP users will be required to run the portable version of calibre in order to get the up-to-date binary. Although it is possible to run from source using the binaries from the portable version, it isn't completely obvious how to set it up.

Bottom line: keeping XP alive by running from source will require technical expertise. There is no way around it.

@chaley - thanks for that, I didn't realise that the dev environment leant as heavily on the binary install - because I hadn't thought it through. But it makes sense that it does, the alternative is to configuration manage all the third party components, not a task for the faint hearted.

My understanding is that the roadblock to supporting XP is in Qt 5, yet Sigil, which also uses Qt5 (the version theducks has uses 5.3.1), is supported on XP.

I appreciate that Qt is large and that calibre will use Qt features that Sigil doesn't and perhaps vice-versa. But it would helpful to know broadly what it is in Qt that prevents calibre working on XP.

I understand that most of Qt and Sigil are written in C++, whereas most of calibre is written in Python. Which leaves to speculate that the problem lies in the Python wrappers/binders/shims for Qt rather than the base Qt product.

Care to comment?

BR

[HRR]

Those of you who are complaining should be ashamed. You should be thanking Kovid for making this software available to us XP users, for free, and leaving uswith software that is superb as is.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

@chaley - thanks for that, I didn't realise that the dev environment leans on the binary install, but it makes sense that it does.

My understanding is that the roadblock to supporting XP is in Qt 5, yet Sigil, which also uses Qt5 (the version theducks has uses 5.3.1), is supported on XP.

I appreciate that Qt is large and that calibre will use Qt features that Sigil doesn't and perhaps vice-versa. But it would helpful to know broadly what it is in Qt that prevents calibre working on XP.

I understand that most of Qt and Sigil are written in C++, whereas most of calibre is written in Python. Which leaves to speculate that the problem lies in the Python wrappers/binders/shims for Qt rather than the base Qt product.

Care to comment?

BR

TBH I don't know, and I don't have the time or energy to try to find out. What I can say is that there have been a large number of bug reports and complaints on this forum. Kovid has clearly decided that it isn't worth the potentially unbounded amount of his time to work out why calibre has problems on XP. That is his privilege. It is also a choice I can understand. Should he support XP or work on improving the editor? Should he support XP or work on a client/server calibre? Should he support XP or work on fixing graphics problems on modern operating systems?

It is very possible that I will need to make a similar choice with Calibre Companion and Gingerbread (Android 2.3). Supporting Gingerbread causes no end of headaches to support around 5% of our installed base. Is that worth it? Do we continue to limit what we can do for 95% of our users to support people using a version of Android that has been dead for a long time? Or alternatively, do we in effect build two apps, one for Android 4 and one for Android <4? Tough choices, but ones that will be made one way or the other will he nill he.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by chaley

It is very possible that I will need to make a similar choice with Calibre Companion and Gingerbread (Android 2.3). Supporting Gingerbread causes no end of headaches to support around 5% of our installed base. Is that worth it? Do we continue to limit what we can do for 95% of our users to support people using a version of Android that has been dead for a long time? Or alternatively, do we in effect build two apps, one for Android 4 and one for Android <4? Tough choices, but ones that will be made one way or the other will he nill he.

If I was in this situation, I'd fork my own application, rename the old one to Calibre Companion Legacy (assuming this is possible in the Android Play Store), and continue development with Android 4.0.4 (the forever-latest version of Icecream Sandwich) as a baseline.

The latest version of Gingerbread is about three years old already, and in phone land, that's almost ancient history.

[theducks]

BR
QT5 is a lot larger than Calibre or Sigil used subsets.

Sigil may not use the piece that is giving Calibre grief so we can not say Because Sigil is OK

For Me Calibre 2.0 is also OK. There is something about MY system that allows it to work.

P4 2.4GHz 2G RAM
No MS Office? (I use Libre Office)
MY A/V?
(I use Windows FireWall)
The model of my Graphics cards? (not a shared ram model)

There are just too many variables for Kovid to risk his hair over

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by chaley

Is it truly necessary to insult people who don't like the metro interface?

That was not an insult but a concession; I was just agreeing with their own claim that "hate" (their word) for the new interface was another reason for adding the Classic Shell.

The reference to "comfort blanket" (in case that was upsetting) is also appropriate; users are seeking comfort from change by promoting the add in. A similar history is that similar dismissals and claims of "hate" arose when Win XP's Start button turned to an orb, etc. in later Windows, yet with time most all the naysayers adapted and found no disadvantage doing so, they became comfortable with the change.

The disservice around about here is that the claims or inferences by some that the Classic Shell is necessary, and in this thread the inference by mbovenka that Classic Shell is necessary for Calibre does nothing to encourage users to move away from XP. The strong claim is that Win 8 is deficient but one can make it better by using third party add ins, whereas that is actually a matter of opinion. And how is it encouraging of users to migrate from XP when Win 8 is said to be deficient?

So another perspective.

In fact Win 8 is the most stable and fastest version of Windows yet. With respect to the "menu" structure of its Start Page, the Apps Page that it overlays, and the Task Bar, my experience is that when people realise how this can be set up they generally become sold on it.

They come to realise that they can have just those applications on the Start Page that they want (for example, just those that they use most and leave the rest out of immediate view on the underlying Apps page), that they can be arranged in the order they want and can be laid out in sensible groups, none of which can be easily done with earlier Windows' menus.

They also come to realise that they no longer need their desktop cluttered with shortcuts that get covered by the windows of open applications (and which cannot be grouped nor is any user arrangement of them stable) and so not readily accessible without dragging or minimising windows already open.

Then they find that to get from the Desk Top to the Start Page and start an application is just 2 mouse clicks, the same as earlier Windows Start Menu but at least one click and likely a drag operation too less than earlier Windows' Desk Top shortcuts. Like earlier Windows the one click option of the Task Bar remains, but sadly the extra room on that which existed in Win 8 has now been taken away in 8.1 by the return of an icon to click on to meet the needs of those who cannot remember that to get to opening applications one clicks on the bottom left corner of the screen despite that being how it has been done for around 20 years or so now.

Now if a user finds that they do not like all of that they are, in my opinion, entitled to use whatever older version of Windows they want, I am totally agnostic on that if there is good reason; in fact part of my background is with critical real time industrial applications which for assurance purposes the OS on a site (which for HMI and SCADA, for example, may likely be Windows) ends up never being migrated to later versions.

But I don't think they are entitled to complain when technology eventually overtakes them, as some are now doing, or make claims that some third party add on is necessary to make the current version of Windows usable when that is really just a matter of opinion.

I'll leave it at that. But hopefully some may be encouraged to explore the benefits of Win 8 as it was meant to be used and not be discouraged by claims of need for it to be propped up by some third party add in for it to be efficient or pleasing to use.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by theducks

Just look at all the 'No longer runs on my NAS', threads.)

@theducks - there's a difference - using calibre on a NAS has never been supported, but since it was released in 2008 calibre has been supported on XP, until now.

The pity is that XP the problems were not discovered until it was released. I wonder if Kovid might have been able to make a different decision had we, the user community, done a more thorough job of testing prior to its release and alerted him to the problems whilst V2 was still in beta.

I for one only really tested the converted PI's. I did not test the beta of the core product against my main libraries much, my excuse is one of the PIs I rely on daily was one of the last to be converted - but its not a very good excuse

BR

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

That was not an insult but a concession; I was just agreeing with their own claim that "hate" (their word) for the new interface was another reason for adding the Classic Shell.

The reference to "comfort blanket" (in case that was upsetting) is also appropriate; users are seeking comfort from change by promoting the add in. A similar history is that similar dismissals and claims of "hate" arose when Win XP's Start button turned to an orb, etc. in later Windows, yet with time most all the naysayers adapted and found no disadvantage doing so, they became comfortable with the change.

Sorry, don't see where you are coming from. A different icon is a very different claim and that was indeed a security blanket. No usability changes whatsoever, just cosmetics.

The disservice around about here is that the claims or inferences by some that the Classic Shell is necessary, and in this thread the inference by mbovenka that Classic Shell is necessary for Calibre does nothing to encourage users to move away from XP. The strong claim is that Win 8 is deficient but one can make it better by using third party add ins, whereas that is actually a matter of opinion. And how is it encouraging of users to migrate from XP when Win 8 is said to be deficient?

Because I encourage them to move to Win7.

So another perspective.

In fact Win 8 is the most stable and fastest version of Windows yet.

I never disagreed with this, though I would point out the multitude of linux distros that are much faster -- if speed were the issue. And stability is merely a question of which distro to use.

With respect to the "menu" structure of its Start Page, the Apps Page that it overlays, and the Task Bar, my experience is that when people realise how this can be set up they generally become sold on it.

They come to realise that they can have just those applications on the Start Page that they want (for example, just those that they use most and leave the rest out of immediate view on the underlying Apps page), that they can be arranged in the order they want and can be laid out in sensible groups, none of which can be easily done with earlier Windows' menus.

They also come to realise that they no longer need their desktop cluttered with shortcuts that get covered by the windows of open applications (and which cannot be grouped nor is any user arrangement of them stable) and so not readily accessible without dragging or minimising windows already open.

So in your opinion rhe start screen is easier to use. (And your opinion is more important than the multitudes who disagree, because you cannot fathom that some of those opinions may have tried it.)

At least partly because it is easier to reorder.

Oh. Em. Gee. You're right, Windows has always had a freaking retarded menu. Guess what. Linux Mint is even easier than the start screen. Perhaps we should all switch to that?

So Windows made it easier more obvious to organize the start screen. Doesn't make Win7 fundamentally harder. If only people were cognizant that ther was a way to begin with...

Then they find that to get from the Desk Top to the Start Page and start an application is just 2 mouse clicks, the same as earlier Windows Start Menu but at least one click and likely a drag operation too less than earlier Windows' Desk Top shortcuts. Like earlier Windows the one click option of the Task Bar remains, but sadly the extra room on that which existed in Win 8 has now been taken away in 8.1 by the return of an icon to click on to meet the needs of those who cannot remember that to get to opening applications one clicks on the bottom left corner of the screen despite that being how it has been done for around 20 years or so now.

It was unintuitive that that should be the singular aspect of the entire OS that has no visible indication of its existence.

Now go back to counting how many clicks you saved. Which you could save on Win7 too. Or customize the menu to get rid of Microsoft's inadequacies.

Now if a user finds that they do not like all of that they are, in my opinion, entitled to use whatever older version of Windows they want, I am totally agnostic on that if there is good reason; in fact part of my background is with critical real time industrial applications which for assurance purposes the OS on a site (which for HMI and SCADA, for example, may likely be Windows) ends up never being migrated to later versions.

Mak up your mind. Is dislike/personal preferences OK or do we have to prove our right to you by virtue of using legacy apps?

But I don't think they are entitled to complain when technology eventually overtakes them, as some are now doing, or make claims that some third party add on is necessary to make the current version of Windows usable when that is really just a matter of opinion.

I'll leave it at that. But hopefully some may be encouraged to explore the benefits of Win 8 as it was meant to be used and not be discouraged by claims of need for it to be propped up by some third party add in for it to be efficient or pleasing to use.

And if thos claims are true? Even just for the majority (apparently) of people?

No OS was meant to be used in any way other than however the user wants to. I refuse to be a slave to someone else's idea of a desktop paradigm if it is inefficient for me.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Windows 8.1 works fine without the third party classic or other similar shells whose only purpose is to provide a comfort blanket for slow adapters.

It's not slow adopters. For me, I get more done via the desktop then I do under Metro. I hardly use any of the Metro apps. My working environment is 99% Desktop apps. I'm not a slow adopter, I'm a desktop user because that's the way the apps are written. Some of the apps I use have Metro versions, but the desktop versions just work better and are easier to use.