Version 0.9d does not work for me - w/Vista (64bit)

[Jack]

Hi
No problem, I'll give it a try later & report back. Misunderstandings are inevitable, think yourself lucky that I'm not trying Dutch! We'd get nowhere...
Jack

[edward]

This is also about the 4 microsoft.directx.* DLLs which are there since 0.9d, of which Edward did not tell that removing them made a difference. I think it just does (and then presents the message from 0.9b you showed).

Peter

OK Peter - every version (0.9d, 0.9d-1, 0.9d-2) all behaved the same (with the same error details). And there was no difference when I ran XXHighEnd.exe with the directx DLLs or without. I even tried running XXHighEnd.exe in a folder by itself and still get the same error.

For now Edward, Vista too just needs these Redistributables.

I also tried to run the DirectX redistributables (even though I have DirectX10) in case perhaps it updates something - it did install something, but with XXHighEnd I still get the same errors. Then I tried to run the .NET Framework 3.0 redistributable, but this just told me that Vista already has this and to turn it on through the "turn windows features on" control panel. (Which I have already done before I started all this)

Peter - If you need to take your time to properly create the x64 version (after you install Vista x64 and test it) then I totally understand. When I have time this week I'm going to create a second boot with 32bit Vista (something I've been meaning to do for other reasons) and I'll just try XXHighEnd then.

[PeterSt]

Thanks Edward, you both must have different sutuations. Thank you for your efforts.

[Jack]

Hi Peter
My situation is exactly the same as Edwards having followed all the steps he has. Bringing up the message of my second screen capture above. The first capture was 0.9b as I said, which presumably was the result you expected from that.


"Must I conclude that you never got 64 running (hence just not tried anymore) ?
And that today it doesn't work anyway ?"

Correct!

Task manager shows XXHighEnd under the processes tab at 4056k of memory (although this varies slightly with each load up)untill I cancel the message.

Over to you
Jack

[PeterSt]

Hi Jack, thank you.

I just got the hunch of what might be going on. I hope to have "some" response in about 26 hours after your last post.
Peter

[PeterSt]

Jack,

Besides that I'm late on things, I just found that what I was looking for (some x64 DLLs) cannot be found where I expected them.
I will proceed on this in an hour or two, but I really don't know your times (you might be even at work right now).

?

[PeterSt]

Small update : Jack has been graciously helping all evening (offline).
So far, no solution yet ...

Thank you Jack.

[edward]

Peter - I have discovered something that may be useful to resolving this issue.

I have installed Vista (32bit) and have been able to use XXHighEnd just fine. Until...for some reason I tried running the program from my external NAS drive and then I get the same error that I've been getting with Vista (64). For what it's worth, it is a Buffalo LinkStation Pro (LS-500GL).

Anyway, I hope this is useful.

[PeterSt]

Hi Edward,

I can't be sure, but this looks similar to having the program sit on one PC and run it from the other. That won't go either. I never found why, nor did I try hard to. It's even inconvenient for developing, because I always have to copy a new build to the PC I want to run it. Anyway ...

Since the message is very general and the program just won't load in such a case, it could very well be that if I find the solution to this "remote" running, with Vista/64 it will run just the same ...

Possibly on Vista/64 there's an official "distance" between the OS itself and its disk subsystem (still being 32bit ??), so it indeed comes down to the same cause then.

What I will do is try to find out is what causes this remote running not to work, and proceed from there.
Thank you.
Peter

[SeVeReD]

Hi Edward,

I can't be sure, but this looks similar to having the program sit on one PC and run it from the other.

Why would someone do this?  It doesn't sound like a very audiophool thing to do.  I'm hoping you keep your niche here as strictly SQ and not try to make things work that are a foolish setup anyway?  If people are going to causally listen from another room and not their main setup (where XXHE should be) then maybe they should use foobar for those applications?  Don't get me wrong.  If you can make things work "all over" in various applications without affecting SQ then fine... but is this a detail you want to spend time working on?  pls don't take the wrong way.  I'm comparing your player to a fine turntable ... you don't just pop it in your shirt pocket and carry it around to workout like an ipod... ie you may need to make sacrifices in convenience to keep the level of SQ up... bah i'm babbling, it's late, and I'm just so happy with the SQ of your player, I just don't want to see it loaded down with "code" to make it work in all applications.  ?? I mean it really does work now... super well... maybe people just need to consider what they are running on their machines and dedicate a computer as their front end.

[edward]

Why would someone do this?  It doesn't sound like a very audiophool thing to do.  I'm hoping you keep your niche here as strictly SQ and not try to make things work that are a foolish setup anyway?

Dave - I think you are misunderstanding what's going on here. We are trying to resolve why the player won't work with Vista (64bit). I'm not sitting on one PC and playing it from another or engaging in any "foolish setup". I just happened to come across a situation that duplicated the same error when trying to play from Vista (64), so I figured (and Peter seems to agree) that it might be related to each other and ultiimately help Peter make this program compatible with Vista (64). I don't necessarily consider this a foolish setup or waste of his time. If he doesn't want to support Vista (64) then that's up to him and fine with me - afterall I can use it just fine with Vista (32) on my dedicated music only PC. I agree that it is not necessary to load the program down with "code" to make it more "universal", and Peter, if that's the case, then there's no need to make this work for Vista (64) just for me.

Dave, I hope this clears things up and puts your mind at ease - I am all about the SQ as well.

[JD]

This thread has gone very quiet.

Peter, have you been able to make any progress with Vista 64?

I thought I would just send this post to show that there is at least one other potential user with Vista 64 (and it's the only Windows OS I have).

John.

PS I get the same error message as others have reported - with all versions.

[SeVeReD]

Boy, I just reread my post, I sure can get paranoid when it comes to keeping SQ high for this player.  I hope he can make it work for you 64bit peps.... maybe a separate 64bit version? ... don't they do that for software that is the same?  Make a 64bit version and a 32 bit version?

[PeterSt]

Peter, have you been able to make any progress with Vista 64?

Hi John,

Actually ... no. A combination of things caused this :

1. Edward, the only one needing it at the time, reported he moved to Vista 32. This would not have stopped me, weren't it that
2. I have a licence to download anything with is more or less in beta phase amongst which Vista, but at the time I wanted to download it it was not available anymore.
3. Once I knew were to get it from, my normal Vista development PC crashed from a lacking driver which was unrepearable, and I had to use the -then- free (Vista) PC to swap OS disks and restore from the original PC all the bits and pieces of over 1 week of downloading it originally took.

Ad 3.
The supplier website of the backup software (Adonis) needed for Vista did not "allow" me to pay for the version I needed. So, no backup.
In the end this caused the need of the original PC (dual booted under XP now) with data to be online for several weeks, and actually 2 weeks ago I could get rid of it.

Is this all a good explanation ? probably not. But sometimes even I can get fedup with stupid computers, and again, afaiknew nobody was waiting for it at the moment.
Right now ? ... I don't even have the computer anymore. And besides all, I think chances are about zero that it even *can* work. It's hard to Google for whatever it is it lacks (Vista64) but the gaming environment seems to have enough problems with it.
Currently I put my money on SP1 and hope it solves "my" problem.

Peter

[JD]

Peter,

It sounds like you've had a real headache with your machine ! I can't understand how it can't be possible for it to work on Vista64 but I understand you don't want to do the work for Vista64 when there are so few pople who need it.

I'm regretting getting Vista64. I assumed 64 bit would be the norm for Vista with so many machines now having 64 bit CPUs, but apparently not.

If you ever want someone to do a little testing on Vista64, do get in touch. I'm not likely to monitor this forum for much longer as at present XXHighEnd is no use to me, so e-mail me if you want my help, deleting the bits in angled brackets (inserted to stop spam bots finding my address):

denningj<delete this bit>.@gotadsl<delete this bit>.co.uk

By the way, Peter, I'm curious why you went for the option of developing an entire player of your own rather than writing an exclusive mode output plug-in for foobar.

John.