This has gone on far too long, and I'm not really interested in
arguing the point. But some of your response is simply factually
incorrect. So, for the record:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:27AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
This has gone on far too long, and I'm not really interested in
arguing the point.
When I am not really interested in arguing a point anymore, I just
stop doing it. I don't consider that a bad habit.
[...]
So, for the record:
This has gone on far too long, and I'm not really interested in
arguing the point. But some of your response is simply factually
incorrect. So, for the record:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:27AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
This has gone on far too long, and I'm not really interested in
arguing the point.
When I am not really interested in arguing a point anymore, I just
stop doing it. I don't consider that a bad habit.
[...]
So, for the record:
This has gone on far too long, and I'm not really interested in
arguing the point. But some of your response is simply factually
incorrect. So, for the record:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:27AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> This has gone on far too long, and I'm not really interested in
> arguing the point.
When I am not really interested in arguing a point anymore, I just
stop doing it. I don't consider that a bad habit.
> [...]
> So, for the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today. The disk
space problem would be even worse.
I meant just for
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. ...
Many people have done
back-of-the-envelope
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I've worked on many projects that maintained backward compatibility
with new releases of the API, and seen a great many
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26:30AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:27AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I've worked on many projects that maintained backward
On 23/11/2008 16:26, Michael Wojcik wrote:
In older versions of the Microsoft toolchain, you could just drop the
MSVC DLLs into the same directory as your executable. That's no longer
allowed (I think as of Visual Studio 2005 and Platform SDK 6.0). Now
they have to be installed into the SxS
- The 4.3 BSD kernel. Extended multihead support in the console driver
and wrote some drivers for new hardware. Enhanced the shared memory
kernel option. Nothing that didn't want to use the new features needed
to be recompiled.
Spring (?) 2001 - January 2002.
Sorry to jump into your
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today. The disk
space problem would be even worse.
I meant just for
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. ...
Many people have done
back-of-the-envelope
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I've worked on many projects that maintained backward compatibility
with new releases of the API, and seen a great many
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26:30AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:27AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I've worked on many projects that maintained backward
On 23/11/2008 16:26, Michael Wojcik wrote:
In older versions of the Microsoft toolchain, you could just drop the
MSVC DLLs into the same directory as your executable. That's no longer
allowed (I think as of Visual Studio 2005 and Platform SDK 6.0). Now
they have to be installed into the SxS
- The 4.3 BSD kernel. Extended multihead support in the console driver
and wrote some drivers for new hardware. Enhanced the shared memory
kernel option. Nothing that didn't want to use the new features needed
to be recompiled.
Spring (?) 2001 - January 2002.
Sorry to jump into your
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
>> the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
>> absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today. The disk
>> space problem would be even worse.
>
> I meant
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
>>> application goes away.
>> Completely infeasible on Windows. ...
>> Many people have done
>>
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
>> I've worked on many projects that maintained backward compatibility
>> with new releases of the API, and seen a great
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26:30AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
> >> the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
> >> absurd amounts of RAM available in typical
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:21:27AM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> >> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> >> I've worked on many projects that
On 23/11/2008 16:26, Michael Wojcik wrote:
In older versions of the Microsoft toolchain, you could just drop the
MSVC DLLs into the same directory as your executable. That's no longer
allowed (I think as of Visual Studio 2005 and Platform SDK 6.0). Now
they have to be installed into the SxS
> > - The 4.3 BSD kernel. Extended multihead support in the console driver
> > and wrote some drivers for new hardware. Enhanced the shared memory
> > kernel option. Nothing that didn't want to use the new features needed
> > to be recompiled.
>
> Spring (?) 2001 - January 2002.
Sorry to jump
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:58:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact that's actually the most sensible behaviour since there are only
very few cases where a new version indeed can replace an older one
without any existing or imagined problem.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set of
files. Presumably there's no way for Windoze to know that
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing
ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
Chicken! Does not even dare to be rude anymore.
JMarc
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today. The disk
space problem would be even worse.
I meant just for application which feel that they
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
pavel
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition...
Andre'
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition...
of
Andre Poenitz wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
Best to start now, eh?
rh
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:58:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact that's actually the most sensible behaviour since there are only
very few cases where a new version indeed can replace an older one
without any existing or imagined problem.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set of
files. Presumably there's no way for Windoze to know that
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing
ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
Chicken! Does not even dare to be rude anymore.
JMarc
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today. The disk
space problem would be even worse.
I meant just for application which feel that they
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
pavel
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition...
Andre'
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition...
of
Andre Poenitz wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
Best to start now, eh?
rh
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:58:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In fact that's actually the most sensible behaviour since there are only
> > very few cases where a new version indeed can replace an older one
> > without any existing or imagined
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
>> I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
>> 54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set of
>> files. Presumably there's no way for Windoze to know
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
> application goes away.
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:52PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> >> I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
> >> 54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
> > application goes away.
>
> Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
> the working set of the
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing
ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
Chicken! Does not even dare to be rude anymore.
JMarc
Completely infeasible on Windows. The loss of shared text would make
the working set of the typical application mix grossly exceed even the
absurd amounts of RAM available in typical machines today. The disk
space problem would be even worse.
I meant just for application which feel that they
> PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
> in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
pavel
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
> > in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
>
> feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition...
Andre'
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
> > > in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
> >
> > feel free to uncover yourself, users list is not evaluated...
>
> Nobody expected the Spanish
Andre Poenitz wrote:
PPS: I cut a few smileys from the mail to avoid the embarassing ranking
in the 1.7 smiley-per-mail statistics.
Best to start now, eh?
rh
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a problem with the
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set of
files. Presumably there's no way for Windoze to know that something
depending on
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact that's actually the most sensible behaviour since there are only
very few cases where a new version indeed can replace an older one
without any existing or imagined problem.
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a problem with the
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set of
files. Presumably there's no way for Windoze to know that something
depending on
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact that's actually the most sensible behaviour since there are only
very few cases where a new version indeed can replace an older one
without any existing or imagined problem.
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
>
>> On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
>> failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
>> suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
>> there is a problem with
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:05AM -0500, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> I wonder if disk manufacturers are paying M$ to do this? I've got about
> 54MB of crap in %windir%\winsxs, with multiple versions of each set of
> files. Presumably there's no way for Windoze to know that something
>
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact that's actually the most sensible behaviour since there are only
> very few cases where a new version indeed can replace an older one
> without any existing or imagined problem.
What's wrong with static linking? At least it goes away when the
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
In the bin directory is a python26.dll file.
Oh -- I just saw that I have a full Python installed on the WinXP
machine (I didn't realize that, sorry...). It's Python 2.5.1
This means that you have Python 2.5.1 installed but the installer didn't
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Should I try to install Python on Vista and try to convert
from LyX 1.5 to 1.6 again?
That would likely work. Alternatively, you might install the M$ VC++
redistributable package
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a problem with the python.exe and/or
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
In the bin directory is a python26.dll file.
Oh -- I just saw that I have a full Python installed on the WinXP
machine (I didn't realize that, sorry...). It's Python 2.5.1
This means that you have Python 2.5.1 installed but the installer didn't
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Should I try to install Python on Vista and try to convert
from LyX 1.5 to 1.6 again?
That would likely work. Alternatively, you might install the M$ VC++
redistributable package
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a problem with the python.exe and/or
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
>> In the bin directory is a python26.dll file.
>> Oh -- I just saw that I have a full Python installed on the WinXP
>> machine (I didn't realize that, sorry...). It's Python 2.5.1
> This means that you have Python 2.5.1 installed but the
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
>> Should I try to install Python on Vista and try to convert
>> from LyX 1.5 to 1.6 again?
> That would likely work. Alternatively, you might install the M$ VC++
> redistributable package
>
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
On the Vista machine, I had no Python installed and the lyx2lyx script
failed. I now installed Microsoft's VC++ redistributable package, as
suggested by Paul Rubin, and now the lyx2lyx script works. So I think
there is a problem with the python.exe and/or
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
read 1.5.x files.
I forgot: I used Uwe's AltInstaller.
Opening
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Also, you might check try converting a file manually on the Vista box,
using a DOS shell. This would look something like
C:\Program Files\LyX16\python\python.exe C:\Program
Files\LyX16\Resources\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx doc.lyx
where doc.lyx is the old document. If it works,
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Also, you might check try converting a file manually on the Vista box,
using a DOS shell. This would look something like
C:\Program Files\LyX16\python\python.exe C:\Program
Files\LyX16\Resources\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx doc.lyx
where doc.lyx is the
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
In the bin directory is a python26.dll file.
Oh -- I just saw that I have a full Python installed on the WinXP
machine (I didn't realize that, sorry...). It's Python 2.5.1
This means that you have Python 2.5.1 installed but the installer didn't
recognize it.
I'm
I wrote:
p.s. I'll provide a new installer version within the next 2 hours that
fixes some Vista-specific bugs.
You can now download this version from:
https://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id=5117release_id=15417
That fixes the following bugs:
- fix a bug in the Romanian
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
read 1.5.x files.
I forgot: I used Uwe's AltInstaller.
Opening
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Also, you might check try converting a file manually on the Vista box,
using a DOS shell. This would look something like
C:\Program Files\LyX16\python\python.exe C:\Program
Files\LyX16\Resources\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx doc.lyx
where doc.lyx is the old document. If it works,
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Also, you might check try converting a file manually on the Vista box,
using a DOS shell. This would look something like
C:\Program Files\LyX16\python\python.exe C:\Program
Files\LyX16\Resources\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx doc.lyx
where doc.lyx is the
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
In the bin directory is a python26.dll file.
Oh -- I just saw that I have a full Python installed on the WinXP
machine (I didn't realize that, sorry...). It's Python 2.5.1
This means that you have Python 2.5.1 installed but the installer didn't
recognize it.
I'm
I wrote:
p.s. I'll provide a new installer version within the next 2 hours that
fixes some Vista-specific bugs.
You can now download this version from:
https://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id=5117release_id=15417
That fixes the following bugs:
- fix a bug in the Romanian
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
>> Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
>>> I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
>>> of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
>>> read 1.5.x files.
>> I forgot: I used Uwe's
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> Also, you might check try converting a file manually on the Vista box,
> using a DOS shell. This would look something like
>> "C:\Program Files\LyX16\python\python.exe" "C:\Program
>> Files\LyX16\Resources\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx" doc.lyx
> where doc.lyx is the old document. If
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Also, you might check try converting a file manually on the Vista box,
using a DOS shell. This would look something like
"C:\Program Files\LyX16\python\python.exe" "C:\Program
Files\LyX16\Resources\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx" doc.lyx
where doc.lyx is
Dominik Waßenhoven schrieb:
In the bin directory is a python26.dll file.
Oh -- I just saw that I have a full Python installed on the WinXP
machine (I didn't realize that, sorry...). It's Python 2.5.1
This means that you have Python 2.5.1 installed but the installer didn't
recognize it.
I'm
I wrote:
p.s. I'll provide a new installer version within the next 2 hours that
fixes some Vista-specific bugs.
You can now download this version from:
https://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id=5117_id=15417
That fixes the following bugs:
- fix a bug in the Romanian
Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
read 1.5.x files.
I forgot: I used Uwe's AltInstaller.
Regards,
Dominik.-
Dominik Waßenhoven wrote:
Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
read 1.5.x files.
I forgot: I used Uwe's AltInstaller.
Opening a 1.5.x doc requires
I have the same problem in Windows Vista with the Uwe's AltInstaller.
Sergio
Dominik Waßenhoven escribió:
Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
Dominik »Ingrid« Waßenhoven wrote:
I installed LyX 1.6.0 on WinXP without problems and can open lyx files
of the 1.5.x series. But on Windows Vista, the same installation cannot
read 1.5.x files.
I forgot: I used Uwe's AltInstaller.
Regards,
Dominik.-
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
