Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #6041 > unrolled thread

clib & RISC OS 4.39

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc

Contents

  clib & RISC OS 4.39 Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariasound@chiemgau-net.de> - 2012-08-11 08:06 +0100
    Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2012-08-11 10:57 +0100
    Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2012-08-11 13:19 +0200
      Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-11 15:06 +0100
        Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-11 15:18 +0100
          Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-11 16:15 +0100
            Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-11 16:48 +0100
              Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-11 23:38 +0100
                Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-12 11:43 +0100
                  Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> - 2012-08-12 13:11 +0100
                    Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-13 15:07 +0100
                      Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2012-08-15 14:28 +0200
                        Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-15 23:35 +0100
                          Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2012-08-16 00:12 +0100
                            Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2012-08-16 08:12 +0000
                              Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2012-08-16 10:41 +0100
                                Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-17 00:24 +0100
                                  Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Alan Griffin <ajg@argonet.co.uk> - 2012-08-17 12:53 +0100
                                    OT. Was: Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-08-18 19:08 +0100
                                    Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-18 22:25 +0100
                                      Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2012-08-19 12:30 +0100
                              Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-17 00:17 +0100
                                Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2012-08-17 21:06 +0100
                                  Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2012-08-18 06:01 +0000
                            Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-17 00:13 +0100
                  Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-13 15:00 +0100
                    Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-13 16:44 +0100
                      Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-13 23:40 +0100
            Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> - 2012-08-11 17:24 +0100
              Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-11 18:43 +0100
              Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-11 23:00 +0100
                Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-11 23:40 +0100
                  Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-12 11:44 +0100
                    Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-13 15:01 +0100
          Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Brian Jordan <brian.jordan9@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-12 00:48 +0100
            Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> - 2012-08-12 09:20 +0100
            Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-12 11:55 +0100
      Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariasound@chiemgau-net.de> - 2012-08-13 06:18 +0000
        Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-08-13 07:48 +0100
          Re: clib & RISC OS 4.39 Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariasound@chiemgau-net.de> - 2012-08-18 07:57 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#6163

In article <52c15c9d9ecvjazz@waitrose.com>,
   Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> In article <52c0a472b0ajg@argonet.co.uk>,
>    Alan Griffin <ajg@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <52c05fda85cvjazz@waitrose.com>,
> >    Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > > Wierd things here too. I examined the !System log file & found
> >   ^^^^^
> > Weird! I before E except after W! (Weight, Weir, but not Wield!)

> Oops! Mea Culpa. Brain tired (or perhaps dead).

I before E except after C - and that isn't always true either.

I think it's I before E except when it's not!

-- 
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6128

In article <a93ob3F2f0U1@mid.individual.net>,
   David Holden <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

> On 16-Aug-2012, Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

> > On 15 Aug, Chris Newman wrote in message
> >     <52bfd7852fcvjazz@waitrose.com>:
> >
> > > As I have 4.39 Adjust I presumably don't need the 500 dir so I'll move
> > > it
> > > out of !Boot & check all works without it.
> >
> > Don't remove it.  It's there to make !Boot standard on all systems;
> > removing it could potentially cause problems when applying updates.
> > >  As you have 4.39, leaving it there won't affect your system in daily
> > > use: that's the whole point.
> >
> > > At this stage, I have no idea what put it there. Many thanks.
> >
> > It will be in all copies of !Boot, because !Boot is supposed to be a
> > standard system.

> It wouldn't be in the 4.39 Boot. It couldn't be because RO5 didn't exist
> when 4.39 was released. It is in RO6 boot which implies that if Chris is
> running 4.39 his Boot is corrupted with some RO6 stuff.

The plot thickens. I've never put RO6 on this machine or any RO6 stuff
(knowingly) so where did that come from?

> BTW Boot isn't standard across all OSs and hasn't been for nearly a decade.
> RO5 has the RO4 type single user structure, from RO 4.29 (?) the ROL Boot
> has been multi-user with multiple Choices directories. Also with RO6 some
> stuff in Choices was moved, so it's always best to use the correct Boot.

> However, for the purposes of this thread the way it works is the same.

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6145

On 17 Aug, Chris Newman wrote in message
    <52c05f3197cvjazz@waitrose.com>:

> In article <a93ob3F2f0U1@mid.individual.net>,
>    David Holden <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It wouldn't be in the 4.39 Boot. It couldn't be because RO5 didn't exist
> > when 4.39 was released. It is in RO6 boot which implies that if Chris is
> > running 4.39 his Boot is corrupted with some RO6 stuff.
> 
> The plot thickens. I've never put RO6 on this machine or any RO6 stuff
> (knowingly) so where did that come from?

David's wrong: the 500 folder could easily have come from a third-party
System update which needed different support modules for different versions
of RISC OS. It doesn't have to come from the OS itself.

This is how things are supposed to work.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6147

On 17-Aug-2012, Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

> David's wrong: the 500 folder could easily have come from a third-party
> System update which needed different support modules for different
> versions of RISC OS. It doesn't have to come from the OS itself.

Indeed he is. Sorry about that. I looked at what I thought was a 'raw' RO
6.20 Boot but it wasn't - it was one that had been installed over RO 4.29 as
a test. Checking the real raw data from the installer of course shows no 500
directory.

Can't think how the 500 got into the 4.29 though. Must have come from some
application that got run and created it when I was testing the installer.

-- 
David Holden  -  APDL  -  <http://www.apdl.co.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6127

In article <mpro.m8tkgg073byhs01ib.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
   Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 15 Aug, Chris Newman wrote in message
>     <52bfd7852fcvjazz@waitrose.com>:

> > As I have 4.39 Adjust I presumably don't need the 500 dir so I'll move it
> > out of !Boot & check all works without it.

> Don't remove it.  It's there to make !Boot standard on all systems; removing
> it could potentially cause problems when applying updates.  As you have
> 4.39, leaving it there won't affect your system in daily use: that's the
> whole point.

> > At this stage, I have no idea what put it there. Many thanks.

> It will be in all copies of !Boot, because !Boot is supposed to be a
> standard system.

A model of clarity as usual. Many thanks, Steve

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6061

In article <52be0adc72chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net>,
   Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <52bdc879a3cvjazz@waitrose.com>,
>    Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:

> > Done that. Mine looks thus...

> > System$Path :
> > Sys:420.,Sys:400.,Sys:370.,Sys:350.,Sys:310.,IDEFS::h-4.$.!BOOT.Resources.!System.

> > Notice it starts at Sys 400 even though I have a 500 directory. Is
> > that because I'm running 4.39 & the 500 directory would never be
> > needed?

> Well 420 actually.

Oops! Well spotted.

> When !System is first seen, it builds the sys
> paths. One of the first things it does is check the version of the
> utility module i.e. OS version. It won't include any dirs with 'name
> number' greater than the OS version.

Fine. I can see the logic in that.

> If you have a 500 directory, then at some point you have installed
> either stuff from RISC OS 5 itself, or an app that requires a RISC OS
> 5 version module if running on RISC OS 5 - 4.39 itself would never
> have created such a directory. 

> What modules are in it? 

CLib 5.56. Dunno how.
> In any case it will not do any harm, since RISC OS 4 will never see it.

I'll just expunge it then.

> > Neither does it end with !System.Modules dir  so presumably it will
> > never look there anyway. Curiouser & curiouser.

> Do not forget that System$Path is a path, to which is appended the
> directory name 'Modules' when loading a module. If you look at the
> last part of the path it is

> IDEFS::h-4.$.!BOOT.Resources.!System.

> If you add 'Modules' to that, you get the directory

> IDEFS::h-4.$.!BOOT.Resources.!System.Modules

> which is the one in question.

So is the machine "seeing" it or not?

> > I also have.....

> > IDEFS::h-4.$.!Boot.Resources.!System.Backup 

> > which has directories from 310 to 500 each of which has more
> > modules than the "normal" directories. I have not made this backup
> > so might it have been made when the machine was upgraded from 3.7
> > to 4.39?

> Well my Iyonix certainly has the backup directory there. It may be
> created by the Configure>Sysmerge tool, which may keep copies of the
> older versions when it upgrades !System. In the same way the Boot
> merge tool keeps a backup in !Boot.Backup.

That could well explain that.

Thanks for your help.

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6064

In article <52bea0c53ccvjazz@waitrose.com>,
   Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> So is the machine "seeing" it or not?

It will look in there last if it cannot find the module in any of the
others.

-- 
Chris Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6065

In article <52beaa475echrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net>,
   Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <52bea0c53ccvjazz@waitrose.com>,
>    Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > So is the machine "seeing" it or not?

> It will look in there last if it cannot find the module in any of the
> others.

Ta.

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6048

In message <52bd9fe31ccvjazz@waitrose.com>
     Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:

> In mine (although as far as I know I didn't put them there) I have....
> 
> ABIMod  CallASWI   CLib    Colours    DDEUtils   DragAnObj   FPEmulator
> FrontEnd  MsgTrans  OLESupport   SharedULib Toolbox. Picker Tabs TreeView
> VProtect
> 
> VProtect appears no where else in !System

VProtect should be in !Boot.Utils for RISC OS 4.39.

-- 
Fred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6049

In article <mpro.m8lmxh00cblb6005d@ypical.nospam.invalid>,
   Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> VProtect should be in !Boot.Utils for RISC OS 4.39.

As in other OSs such as RISC OS 5.

-- 
Chris Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6050

In article <mpro.m8lmxh00cblb6005d@ypical.nospam.invalid>,
   Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> In message <52bd9fe31ccvjazz@waitrose.com>
>      Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:

> > In mine (although as far as I know I didn't put them there) I have....
> > 
> > ABIMod  CallASWI   CLib    Colours    DDEUtils   DragAnObj   FPEmulator
> > FrontEnd  MsgTrans  OLESupport   SharedULib Toolbox. Picker Tabs TreeView
> > VProtect
> > 
> > VProtect appears no where else in !System

> VProtect should be in !Boot.Utils for RISC OS 4.39.

Ta. I checked. I've got it there as well. I'll expunge the one im Modules.

Regards,

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6052

In article <52bdc50cb0cvjazz@waitrose.com>,
   Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> In article <mpro.m8lmxh00cblb6005d@ypical.nospam.invalid>,
>    Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> > In message <52bd9fe31ccvjazz@waitrose.com>
> >      Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:

> > > In mine (although as far as I know I didn't put them there) I have....
> > > 
> > > ABIMod  CallASWI   CLib    Colours    DDEUtils   DragAnObj   FPEmulator
> > > FrontEnd  MsgTrans  OLESupport   SharedULib Toolbox. Picker Tabs TreeView
> > > VProtect
> > > 
> > > VProtect appears no where else in !System

> > VProtect should be in !Boot.Utils for RISC OS 4.39.

> Ta. I checked. I've got it there as well. I'll expunge the one im Modules.

Supplementary question. Why is there a Boot.Utils as opposed to the
NNN.Module directories? Does it take precedence or something?

Cheers,

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6056

In article <52bdc8b02ccvjazz@waitrose.com>,
   Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> Supplementary question. Why is there a Boot.Utils as opposed to the
> NNN.Module directories? Does it take precedence or something?

Stuff in Boot.Utils is always run during the boot process. Modules
are only loaded if needed, by the app that needs it/them.

-- 
Chris Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6062

In article <52be0afdb3chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net>,
   Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <52bdc8b02ccvjazz@waitrose.com>,
>    Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > Supplementary question. Why is there a Boot.Utils as opposed to the
> > NNN.Module directories? Does it take precedence or something?

> Stuff in Boot.Utils is always run during the boot process. Modules
> are only loaded if needed, by the app that needs it/them.

OK. Thanks.

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6053

In message <52bd9ab19dchrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net>
          Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <52bd999662cvjazz@waitrose.com>,
>    Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> IDEFS::h-4.$.!Boot.Resources.!System.Modules.

> This directory is redundant and should normally be empty, unless you
> are running *very* old legacy software which looks only there.

[snip]

According to Reporter, during the boot sequence RISC OS Select 6.20 
here Filer_Runs HostFS::HardDisc4.$.!boot.Choices.Users.Single.Boot.Ta 
sks.LoadIClear which contains the following -
rmload HostFS::HardDisc4.$.!Boot.Resources.!System.Modules.IClear

I have tried to be very careful when upgrading my system but 
presumably this is something which has slipped through unnoticed.

Is this something left over from *very* old legacy software (the 
IClear module is v1.33 (23 Oct 2004) and if so what might it be? If it 
is needed should I put the module into 310 and amend the LoadIClear 
file or keep the module in !Boot.Resources.!System.Modules?

-- 

Brian Jordan
Virtual RPC-AdjustSA
RISC OS 6.20

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6054

In article <7be7cebd52.Brian@brian.jordan9.btinternet.com>,
   Brian Jordan <brian.jordan9@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In message <52bd9ab19dchrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net>
>           Chris Johnson <chrisjohnson+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > In article <52bd999662cvjazz@waitrose.com>,
> >    Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> >> IDEFS::h-4.$.!Boot.Resources.!System.Modules.

> > This directory is redundant and should normally be empty, unless you
> > are running *very* old legacy software which looks only there.

> [snip]

> According to Reporter, during the boot sequence RISC OS Select 6.20 
> here Filer_Runs HostFS::HardDisc4.$.!boot.Choices.Users.Single.Boot.Ta 
> sks.LoadIClear which contains the following -
> rmload HostFS::HardDisc4.$.!Boot.Resources.!System.Modules.IClear

> I have tried to be very careful when upgrading my system but 
> presumably this is something which has slipped through unnoticed.

> Is this something left over from *very* old legacy software (the 
> IClear module is v1.33 (23 Oct 2004) and if so what might it be? If it 
> is needed should I put the module into 310 and amend the LoadIClear 
> file or keep the module in !Boot.Resources.!System.Modules?

As a plain user (That's of RISC OS, not illegal substances) I only need to
look inside the works when something goes wrong. However, I do find the logic
of where things should go in the !Boot a bit daunting. There are modules in
PreDesk (There are 2 of those in 4.39), Task, Utils, NNN.modules, Scrap (with
its several strangely named dirs) etc. I think I've seen an article which
explains the grand plan behind it all but don't seem to have saved a copy. Is
there such a thing? 

Yours, terminally confused...

-- 
Chris Newman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6057

In article <7be7cebd52.Brian@brian.jordan9.btinternet.com>,
   Brian Jordan <brian.jordan9@btinternet.com> wrote:
> According to Reporter, during the boot sequence RISC OS Select 6.20 
> here Filer_Runs HostFS::HardDisc4.$.!boot.Choices.Users.Single.Boot.Ta 
> sks.LoadIClear which contains the following -

> rmload HostFS::HardDisc4.$.!Boot.Resources.!System.Modules.IClear

> I have tried to be very careful when upgrading my system but 
> presumably this is something which has slipped through unnoticed.

This is bad, because it is using a hardcoded path name - what happens
if you rename your hard drive. This is the whole point of the
System$Path variable. The way to load a module normally would be to
use

  RMLoad System:Modules.IClear

and then the various dirs would be worked through until it was found.
The System: path would of course refer to the current Boot path with
disc name etc. This is how it would be done in an apps !Run file.

However, in this case, it is a file that is run from the Tasks
directory. I would guess that there was originally some sort of
installer to install IClear which built the hard coded path when the
software was installed - perhaps it also simply installed the module
in the Modules directory to cope with systems not running the
'Universal Boot'.

-- 
Chris Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6059

In message <e04f8abd52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
          Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:


>> Clib 5.53 (14 mar 2005) error message: ... is known to be unsuitable
>> for this operation system version and may cause instability with
>> certain components...
>
>You should not see this error on a standard 4.39 machine. Maybe you
>have got some components from later RISC OS versions installed? That
>would also explain the first error above.

I installed RISC OS 6.20 but boot from RISC OS 4.39 because of troubles
I got with RISC OS 6.20. Something went wrong.

It may be that I should copy !Boot from the RISC OS 4.39 CD instead of
!Boot from the RISC OS 6.20 CD?

The version of !Boot, supplied with my version of RISC OS 6.20, just
doesn't work with RISC OS 4.39 here.

It also seems that an old version of !ARMViewer caused some troubles
here. I wasn't able to use properly TechWriter since the new
installation of the boot sequence of RISC OS 4.39 (I'm using ArtWorks
2.x for some time now). I removed RISC OS 6.20 complettely yet. The Clib
version I installed is 5.53 at the moment, but there are no troubles
until time of writing.

A.

-- 
http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6060

In message <8a6d76be52.bavariasound@bavariasound.chiemgau-net.de>
          Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariasound@chiemgau-net.de> 
wrote:

> In message <e04f8abd52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
>           Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:


>>> Clib 5.53 (14 mar 2005) error message: ... is known to be unsuitable
>>> for this operation system version and may cause instability with
>>> certain components...
>>
>>You should not see this error on a standard 4.39 machine. Maybe you
>>have got some components from later RISC OS versions installed? That
>>would also explain the first error above.

> I installed RISC OS 6.20 but boot from RISC OS 4.39 because of troubles
> I got with RISC OS 6.20. Something went wrong.

How did you install 6.20 - did you follow the instructions including 
how to reset the CMOS and check for unplugged Modules etc.. If not you 
will get problems.

> It may be that I should copy !Boot from the RISC OS 4.39 CD instead of
> !Boot from the RISC OS 6.20 CD?

No! If you want to remove RO 6.20 you should have an uninstaller on 
your hard drive in a folder called RISCOS6, that will swap the RISCOS 
!Boot's over (provided you have kept the old one which would have been 
saved as Bootxxxx where xxxxx is a number).

You could of course simply rename the existing 6.20 !Boot and install 
the emergency basic RISC OS 6 !boot on the CD.

If not then grab a copy of the 4.39 !Boot file from the RISCOS Ltd 
site. and then rename existing !Boot and copy the 4.39 one. You will 
then know you have a good clean copy.

> The version of !Boot, supplied with my version of RISC OS 6.20, just
> doesn't work with RISC OS 4.39 here.

I strongly suspect you have not followed the instructions properly

> It also seems that an old version of !ARMViewer caused some troubles
> here. I wasn't able to use properly TechWriter since the new
> installation of the boot sequence of RISC OS 4.39 (I'm using ArtWorks
> 2.x for some time now). I removed RISC OS 6.20 complettely yet. The Clib
> version I installed is 5.53 at the moment, but there are no troubles
> until time of writing.

Get the latest version of !ARViewer from M W Software website, it 
works fine on 6.20 and 4.39.

Clib 5.53 should work fine on both 4.39 and 6.20.  If not then you 
have other issues.




-- 
Chris Hughes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6148

In message <282979be52.chris@o2.co.uk>
          Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> Clib 5.53 (14 mar 2005) error message: ... is known to be unsuitable
>>>> for this operation system version and may cause instability with
>>>> certain components...
>>>
>>>You should not see this error on a standard 4.39 machine. Maybe you
>>>have got some components from later RISC OS versions installed? That
>>>would also explain the first error above.
>
>> I installed RISC OS 6.20 but boot from RISC OS 4.39 because of troubles
>> I got with RISC OS 6.20. Something went wrong.
>
>How did you install 6.20 - did you follow the instructions including
>how to reset the CMOS and check for unplugged Modules etc.. If not you
>will get problems.

I read it again and again without the success to find a solution to the
problems I got here after an installation. It may be that my
understanding of English is to weak.

I cannot find any information about to reset the CMOS in the
instructions. Where do I find it?

>> It may be that I should copy !Boot from the RISC OS 4.39 CD instead of
>> !Boot from the RISC OS 6.20 CD?
>
>No! If you want to remove RO 6.20 you should have an uninstaller on
>your hard drive in a folder called RISCOS6, that will swap the RISCOS
>!Boot's over (provided you have kept the old one which would have been
>saved as Bootxxxx where xxxxx is a number).

Both was already deleted before because of limit space of harddisc. (I
already installed a plain means new installation of the RISC OS 4.39
Boot sequence before, that's why I deleted the copy the system made).

The !Boot-directory from the RISC OS six CD in the folder Recovery is
missing the directories RO420Hook and RO430Hook (and may be other
things) why a booting in combination with RISC OS 4.39 ROMs using the
!Boot-directory or application from the RISC OS 6.20 CD fails (without
the later installation of RISC OS 6.20).

[part snipped]

>> It also seems that an old version of !ARMViewer caused some troubles
>> here. I wasn't able to use properly TechWriter since the new
>> installation of the boot sequence of RISC OS 4.39 (I'm using ArtWorks
>> 2.x for some time now). I removed RISC OS 6.20 complettely yet. The Clib
>> version I installed is 5.53 at the moment, but there are no troubles
>> until time of writing.
>
>Get the latest version of !ARViewer from M W Software website, it
>works fine on 6.20 and 4.39.

Before the installation of RISC OS 6.20 I installed the ArtWorksViewer
2.16 and the sharedunixlibrary module 1.11 (because !GCC requires the
last one).

Then I installed RISC OS 6.20. After the installation, there was version
1.80 of !ArtWorksViewer and 1.10 of sharedunixlibrary in the system. I
don't understand this.

I replaced both through later versions. After this two changements /
modifications, troubles beguns; different software was complaining with
errors (MessengerPro, StrongEd, TechWriter etc.).

May be that I should try to reinstall all the software after the
installation of RISC OS 6.20 but haven't the time yet. I need the
computer for serious work, not for timber and long wave!

>Clib 5.53 should work fine on both 4.39 and 6.20.  If not then you
>have other issues.

It does but not version 5.63 of clib. The last one seems to run stable
only on RISC OS 6.20.

There is another question: !Boot->Configuration>softload

I can switch off the softload of RISC OS 6.20 but as user I expect that
a boot into RISC OS 4 works because I get no warning about doing it.
Here it doesn't because it complains about the instability of clib 6.63
for this system (booting into RISC OS 4.39 after installation of RISC
OS 6.20).

A.

-- 
Chiemgau, Bavaria, European Alps

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc

csiph-web