Home > Archive > Visual FoxPro Programming > June 2006 > Error rendering image in VFP3.0b
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Error rendering image in VFP3.0b
|
|
|
| I have an application that has a login page showing the company logo
(loading a bitmap file) in the middle of the page. It works fine on my PC
and also most other client PC, but it returns an error on ONE client PC. I
forgot exactly what the error message is, but it is related to the file
vfp300.esl. The client PC is a new one, with 1.5GHz, 768 ram, XP. Do anyone
encounter anythings similar and how to resolve it? Thanks.
| |
| Dan Freeman 2006-06-26, 7:12 pm |
| Since you don't remember the error message, how is anyone supposed to even
TRY to help you?
If I was guessing, I'd guess the new hardware has too much memory for VFP3
(which was obsoleted SIX versions ago).
Dan
Jerry wrote:
> I have an application that has a login page showing the company logo
> (loading a bitmap file) in the middle of the page. It works fine on
> my PC and also most other client PC, but it returns an error on ONE
> client PC. I forgot exactly what the error message is, but it is
> related to the file vfp300.esl. The client PC is a new one, with
> 1.5GHz, 768 ram, XP. Do anyone encounter anythings similar and how to
> resolve it? Thanks.
| |
| Lee Mitchell 2006-06-26, 7:12 pm |
| Hi Jerry:
This is a common problem when running VFP 3.0 applications on newer
machines with more memory:
137809 FIX: Insufficient Memory on a Computer That Has 512 MB of RAM
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;137809
I hope this helps.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Sincerely,
Microsoft FoxPro Technical Support
Lee Mitchell
*-- VFP9 HAS ARRIVED!! --*
Read about all the new features of VFP9 here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/
*--Purchase VFP 9.0 here:
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/i...cid=54787e64-52
69-4500-8bf2-3f06689f4ab3&type=ovr
Keep an eye on the product lifecycle for Visual FoxPro here:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex
- VFP5 Mainstream Support retired June 30th, 2003
- VFP6 Mainstream Support retired Sept. 30th, 2003
>Since you don't remember the error message, how is anyone supposed to even
>TRY to help you?
>If I was guessing, I'd guess the new hardware has too much memory for VFP3
>(which was obsoleted SIX versions ago).
>Dan
>Jerry wrote:
> I have an application that has a login page showing the company logo
> (loading a bitmap file) in the middle of the page. It works fine on
> my PC and also most other client PC, but it returns an error on ONE
> client PC. I forgot exactly what the error message is, but it is
> related to the file vfp300.esl. The client PC is a new one, with
> 1.5GHz, 768 ram, XP. Do anyone encounter anythings similar and how to
> resolve it? Thanks.
| |
| Gene Wirchenko 2006-06-26, 10:07 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:58:37 -0700, "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Since you don't remember the error message, how is anyone supposed to even
>TRY to help you?
>
>If I was guessing, I'd guess the new hardware has too much memory for VFP3
>(which was obsoleted SIX versions ago).
Try five. There was no VFP 4.
And so what? I remember when there were .2 and so on
subversions. Now, I rarely see anything past .1. It make whole
number version number much less impressive.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
| |
| Fred Taylor 2006-06-27, 4:19 am |
| OK, so how does 11 years sound then? <g> VFP3 is absolute *ancient*
history.
--
Fred
Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@ucantrade.com.NOTHERE> wrote in message
news:l831a2toos99ikta1riqgmcehhtp6ej2q3@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:58:37 -0700, "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Try five. There was no VFP 4.
>
> And so what? I remember when there were .2 and so on
> subversions. Now, I rarely see anything past .1. It make whole
> number version number much less impressive.
>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
| |
| Dan Freeman 2006-06-27, 7:08 pm |
| Actually, there *was* a VFP4. It just never made it out of alpha. (The
splash screen had roadrunner on it. <g> ) But as Fred says, maybe 11 years
would sound better.
Dan
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:58:37 -0700, "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Try five. There was no VFP 4.
>
> And so what? I remember when there were .2 and so on
> subversions. Now, I rarely see anything past .1. It make whole
> number version number much less impressive.
>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
| |
| Gene Wirchenko 2006-06-27, 7:09 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:08:20 -0700, "Fred Taylor"
<ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote:
>OK, so how does 11 years sound then? <g> VFP3 is absolute *ancient*
>history.
Are you under 11? Or are you absolutely ancient? <bigger G>
For my programming editing, I use a word processor that I got in
1988. Why? Because nothing else I have tried works nearly as well.
Plenty of other editors have flashy this and that, but I want a
workhorse.
Sincerely,
Gene "Absolute, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely ancient at 45 (or
not)" Wirchenko
| |
| Fred Taylor 2006-06-27, 10:03 pm |
| I think I fit it the latter part of your statement. <g>
As far as older software goes, if there's no problem running it in newer
environments, then by all means continue to use it. VFP (especially 3)
doesn't fit in that category. The damn thing never even ran well in the
environment it was *built for* (W95), so I certainly wouldn't continue to
use it.
--
Fred
Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@ucantrade.com.NOTHERE> wrote in message
news:msi3a29shb8k521q2pgb48adg9ca4ls7na@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:08:20 -0700, "Fred Taylor"
> <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote:
>
>
> Are you under 11? Or are you absolutely ancient? <bigger G>
>
> For my programming editing, I use a word processor that I got in
> 1988. Why? Because nothing else I have tried works nearly as well.
> Plenty of other editors have flashy this and that, but I want a
> workhorse.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene "Absolute, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely ancient at 45 (or
> not)" Wirchenko
>
| |
| Dan Freeman 2006-06-28, 7:07 pm |
| Fred Taylor wrote:
> I think I fit it the latter part of your statement. <g>
You do indeed. <gd&r>
>
> As far as older software goes, if there's no problem running it in
> newer environments, then by all means continue to use it. VFP
> (especially 3) doesn't fit in that category. The damn thing never
> even ran well in the environment it was *built for* (W95), so I
> certainly wouldn't continue to use it.
But it was GREAT in NT3.51. <s>
Dan
| |
| Gene Wirchenko 2006-06-28, 7:07 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:08:25 -0700, "Fred Taylor"
<ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote:
>I think I fit it the latter part of your statement. <g>
>
>As far as older software goes, if there's no problem running it in newer
>environments, then by all means continue to use it. VFP (especially 3)
There was a problem, so I got DOSBox. It is  that an editor
that is old enough to vote and that is running under an emulator is
better than anything else that I have found. (Your Biases May Vary.)
>doesn't fit in that category. The damn thing never even ran well in the
>environment it was *built for* (W95), so I certainly wouldn't continue to
>use it.
I never did use 3. I got into VFP just after 5 was released. I
have heard stories.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
| |
| Fred Taylor 2006-06-28, 10:03 pm |
| "Dan Freeman" <spam@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23pre5qsmGHA.4772@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Fred Taylor wrote:
>
> You do indeed. <gd&r>
>
>
> But it was GREAT in NT3.51. <s>
Even there we found it "not ready for prime-time". It wasn't until VFP5 it
became stable enough for us to consider shipping a product in it.
|
|
|
|
|