RE: batting .500 on xfree86-4.0 install

["Cronin B. Vining" <vining at zts dot com>]

Suhaib and the list,

My deep apologies about the "new dll".  It never happened.  Besides, there
was only dll and it entirely fix the problem anyway.

I'm not a developer, but I've done enough coding to have some appreciation
of the difficulties facing you and your team.  I'm new to Cygwin and I'm
not compiling anything (yet).  As an end-user I've felt my best
contribution was to test as best I can and report the results.  I'm happy
to do that.

Someone (I'd name him again, but I'm not sure he wants the 'credit' now!)
was kind enough to do a special compile addressing my (perhaps peculiar)
failure.  It seemed only polite to actually test the thing, and report
those results.

I can certainly appreciate the confusion resulting from many "custom"
versions floating around.  OTOH, surely everyone benefits from widespread
and diverse testing.  In any case, I respect your experience with such
things and I'll follow your advice as best I can.

BTW, I just tried your suggestion about using the xwin.exe from
XWin-Win9x-Me.tar.bz2.      No go.  As far as i can tell this xwin.exe
behaves exactly the same (for me) as the one from xfree86-4.0-DLLs.tar.bz2.
And I mean exactly:  both versions work fine on one NT box I have, and both
fail with the same error messages on my other NT box.

I'm going to look around for newer/alternate video drivers for my STB
ViRGE/VX adapter.  The NT SP6 didn't update that driver, so I'm still using
the one that came with my machine.

Thx again for your help.

ZU,
    Cronin
    <vining@zts.com>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cygwin-xfree-owner@sources.redhat.com
>[mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Suhaib
>Siddiqi
>Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 5:59 AM
>To: Cronin B. Vining; cygwin-xfree@sourceware.cygnus.com
>Cc: 'Yadin Goldschmidt'
>Subject: RE: batting .500 on xfree86-4.0 install
>
>
>
>> So, the new dll did eliminate the "back" error, but not the
>"Direct Draw"
>> error.   Somehow I think the "back" error is a red herring.
>Maybe I just
>> have a weird video card/driver here.
>>
>
>
>WHAT NEW DLLS?  PLEASE DO NOT HAVE CUSTOM VERSIONS OF FIXED/MODIFIED
>EXECUTABLES
>AND DLLS FLOATING AROUND.  YOU WILL MAKE MY LIFE HECK OF
>TROUBLE.  I WOULD
>NOT KNOW WHAT CHANGED YOU MADE, WERE THOSE CHANGES WHICH
>SHOULD HAVE BEEN
>INCORPORATED INTO OFFICIAL RELEASES.
>
>sUHAIB
>
>
>>
>> Thx for your support.
>>
>> ZU,
>>     Cronin
>>     <vining@zts.com>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: cygwin-xfree-owner@sources.redhat.com
>> >[mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
>Harold Hunt
>> >Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 10:40 PM
>> >To: cygwin-xfree@sourceware.cygnus.com
>> >Subject: RE: batting .500 on xfree86-4.0 install
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm sending Cronin a test dll that does not allocate a back
>> >buffer for the
>> >screen, because, as far as I can tell, the back buffer is
>not needed.
>> >
>> >Harold
>> >
>