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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #27791 > unrolled thread

Re: JDK 8 is there

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: JDK 8 is there Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-03-18 19:09 -0700
    Re: JDK 8 is there Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-03-18 22:11 -0400
    Re: JDK 8 is there Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-03-18 19:49 -0700
    Re: JDK 8 is there Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2014-03-19 01:34 -0400
      Re: JDK 8 is there Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-03-19 02:27 -0700
        Re: JDK 8 is there lipska the kat <lipskathekat@example.com> - 2014-03-19 20:30 +0000
          Re: JDK 8 is there Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-03-24 21:38 -0400
        Re: JDK 8 is there Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2014-03-24 23:02 -0400
          Re: JDK 8 is there Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-03-25 04:18 -0700
            Re: JDK 8 is there Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-03-25 08:58 -0700
              Re: JDK 8 is there Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> - 2014-03-25 13:33 -0400
              Re: JDK 8 is there Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-03-25 18:26 -0400

#27791 — Re: JDK 8 is there

On 18 Mar 2014 22:51:11 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>  Looks as if JDK 8 has just made it to the official download page

I tried installing it.  Then I typed:

[C:\Program Files (x86)\Java\jre8\bin]java.exe -version
java version "1.7.0_51"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_51-b13)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.51-b03, mixed mode)

What the heck? Is it somehow grabbing 1.7 or did they bundle a 1.7 as
1.8?
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
"Incorrect documentation is often worse than no documentation."
~ Bertrand Meyer (born: 1950 age: 63), creator of design by contract 
and the Eiffel language.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#27792

On 3/18/2014 10:09 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2014 22:51:11 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>   Looks as if JDK 8 has just made it to the official download page
>
> I tried installing it.  Then I typed:
>
> [C:\Program Files (x86)\Java\jre8\bin]java.exe -version
> java version "1.7.0_51"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_51-b13)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.51-b03, mixed mode)
>
> What the heck? Is it somehow grabbing 1.7 or did they bundle a 1.7 as
> 1.8?

Something is seriously wrong here.

Not only:

jre8 vs 1.7.0_51

but also:

Program Files (x86) vs 64-Bit Server VM

Try and run the exe with full path.

Arne

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

#27793

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:09:04 -0700, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>I tried installing it.  Then I typed:
>
>[C:\Program Files (x86)\Java\jre8\bin]java.exe -version
>java version "1.7.0_51"

However javac.exe -version gives 1.8.0
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
"Incorrect documentation is often worse than no documentation."
~ Bertrand Meyer (born: 1950 age: 63), creator of design by contract 
and the Eiffel language.

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

#27794

On 3/18/2014 10:09 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2014 22:51:11 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
> 
>>  Looks as if JDK 8 has just made it to the official download page
> 
> I tried installing it.  Then I typed:
> 
> [C:\Program Files (x86)\Java\jre8\bin]java.exe -version
> java version "1.7.0_51"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_51-b13)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.51-b03, mixed mode)
> 
> What the heck? Is it somehow grabbing 1.7 or did they bundle a 1.7 as
> 1.8?
> 

Sorry I don't have a definite answer for you, but I've run into
similar issues in the past.  Here's some things you can look for:

On Windows, PATH is not always used to locate the JVM; a registry
setting is.  When you install multiple versions, that setting can
get confused.  Note the setting is used for applets, webstart, etc.
I find that by uninstalling all previous JDK and JRE versions first,
then installing the new version, I don't have that problem.  It's
a similar issue if you install both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions;
if you install the 64-bit version last, Applets and WebStarts will
use that even from a 32-bit browser.

From the command line, I think PATH is used, so in your case the
results are strange.  But, based on your prompt, PATH shouldn't be
used; Windows looks in the current directory before resorting to
PATH.  So the results are very strange.

You might need to reboot (required somtime at least through Vista),
or double-check the PATH setting.  (Since WinXP, the PATH won't
expand other environment variables, so make sure you don't
have something like ";%JAVA_HOME%\bin;" in there.)

Make sure java.exe really is in the current folder (use dir).  In
spite of the name, make sure you installed java 8 there and not
elsewhere.  If so, it probably is a PATH issue.  Try using a
pathname and see if you run ther correct JVM:  .\java.exe -version

(Tip: manage PATH and other environment variables for Windows
using Rapid Environment Editor.)

-- 
Wayne

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

#27795

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:34:23 -0400, Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Make sure java.exe really is in the current folder (use dir).  In
>spite of the name, make sure you installed java 8 there and not
>elsewhere.  If so, it probably is a PATH issue.  Try using a
>pathname and see if you run ther correct JVM:  .\java.exe -version

In times past you could have several different JVMs installed, and
when you said Java.exe it always used the one in the current
directory.

The JCP does not reflect all the JVMs installed. If you add them, it
soon tosses them out.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
"Incorrect documentation is often worse than no documentation."
~ Bertrand Meyer (born: 1950 age: 63), creator of design by contract 
and the Eiffel language.

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

#27798

On 19/03/14 09:27, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:34:23 -0400, Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> Make sure java.exe really is in the current folder (use dir).  In
>> spite of the name, make sure you installed java 8 there and not
>> elsewhere.  If so, it probably is a PATH issue.  Try using a
>> pathname and see if you run ther correct JVM:  .\java.exe -version
>
> In times past you could have several different JVMs installed, and
> when you said Java.exe it always used the one in the current
> directory.
>
> The JCP does not reflect all the JVMs installed. If you add them, it
> soon tosses them out.

I've more or less given up trying to install several different versions 
of Java in the same general location. The way I've found to use 
different versions on the same machine is to install the required 
version in local userspace. I have only tried this on *nix based 
systems, no idea if it's possible on Windows.

This way you can configure your PATH, JAVA_HOME and anything else you 
need in your account specific .bashrc or whatever.

I have various versions from 1.4 on installed in various different 
accounts and all I have to do is log into the required account and away 
you go. No conflicts, no surprises and no problems ... so far.


-- 
lipska the kat - treacherous feline.
GNU/Linux user #560883 - linuxcounter.net

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

#27842

On 3/19/2014 4:30 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 19/03/14 09:27, Roedy Green wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:34:23 -0400, Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> wrote,
>> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>> Make sure java.exe really is in the current folder (use dir).  In
>>> spite of the name, make sure you installed java 8 there and not
>>> elsewhere.  If so, it probably is a PATH issue.  Try using a
>>> pathname and see if you run ther correct JVM:  .\java.exe -version
>>
>> In times past you could have several different JVMs installed, and
>> when you said Java.exe it always used the one in the current
>> directory.
>>
>> The JCP does not reflect all the JVMs installed. If you add them, it
>> soon tosses them out.
>
> I've more or less given up trying to install several different versions
> of Java in the same general location. The way I've found to use
> different versions on the same machine is to install the required
> version in local userspace.

I assume you by that mean under the users directory.

Usually user space has a different meaning in *nix.

>                              I have only tried this on *nix based
> systems, no idea if it's possible on Windows.

You can do similar on Windows.

> This way you can configure your PATH, JAVA_HOME and anything else you
> need in your account specific .bashrc or whatever.
>
> I have various versions from 1.4 on installed in various different
> accounts and all I have to do is log into the required account and away
> you go. No conflicts, no surprises and no problems ... so far.

Does it really make a difference where the software is installed as
long as you have user specific config files?

Arne

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

#27843

On 3/19/2014 5:27 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:34:23 -0400, Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
> 
>> Make sure java.exe really is in the current folder (use dir).  In
>> spite of the name, make sure you installed java 8 there and not
>> elsewhere.  If so, it probably is a PATH issue.  Try using a
>> pathname and see if you run ther correct JVM:  .\java.exe -version
> 
> In times past you could have several different JVMs installed, and
> when you said Java.exe it always used the one in the current
> directory.
> 
> The JCP does not reflect all the JVMs installed. If you add them, it
> soon tosses them out.
> 

Some more information:

The Windows installer will sometimes copy java.exe from the
public JRE into C:\Windows.  So, even if your PATH is set
correctly, unless the JRE\bin folder is near the front, the
system may still find an older java.exe left over from an
older install.  (If you install the public JRE along with
the JDK, it should overwrite the old java.exe.)

To test this, open a command line window, and type:
   where java

-- 
Wayne

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

#27847

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:02:59 -0400, Wayne <nospam@all.invalid> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>The Windows installer will sometimes copy java.exe from the
>public JRE into C:\Windows.  So, even if your PATH is set
>correctly, unless the JRE\bin folder is near the front, the
>system may still find an older java.exe left over from an
>older install.  (If you install the public JRE along with
>the JDK, it should overwrite the old java.exe.)
>
>To test this, open a command line window, and type:
>   where java

That was the usual problem in the olden days.

But today you can do :

cd E:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.8.0\bin
java.exe -version

and it will STILL get the wrong Java.

I got around the problem by uninstalling all the JDKs, pruning files
and registry then installing just one of them. This also made IntelliJ
13.1 idea64.exe start working too.

I was under the delusion you needed a 32 bit JVM for the browser.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
"A great lathe operator commands several times the wage of an average lathe
operator, but a great writer of software code is worth 10,000 times the
price of an average software writer."
~ Bill Gates

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

#27849

On 3/25/2014 04:18, Roedy Green wrote:
> I was under the delusion you needed a 32 bit JVM for the browser.

I think you do.  I'm using Win 8.1.  I removed all of Java 7 and 
installed 8 with no difficulties.  I did install 32bit as well for 
Firefox.  It works more or less.

-- 

Knute Johnson

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

#27856

On 3/25/2014 11:58 AM, Knute Johnson wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 04:18, Roedy Green wrote:
>> I was under the delusion you needed a 32 bit JVM for the browser.
> 
> I think you do.  I'm using Win 8.1.  I removed all of Java 7 and installed 8 with no
> difficulties.  I did install 32bit as well for Firefox.  It works more or less.
> 

Just be sure to install the 32-bit JRE last.  Browsers on Windows
don't use PATH to locate the JRE.

-- 
Wayne

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

#27868

On 3/25/2014 11:58 AM, Knute Johnson wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 04:18, Roedy Green wrote:
>> I was under the delusion you needed a 32 bit JVM for the browser.
>
> I think you do.

I very much doubt that.

I believe you need to use 32 bit Java with a 32 bit browser
and 64 bit Java with a 64 bit Java.

And this belief is just because most people use 32 bit browsers.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web