PDA

View Full Version : Problems with latest beta and XP



Stephen R Ward
2004-08-05, 02:16
Hi!

I wondered if anyone else was having problems with 5.3.0b1 and XP (5.1.2600
SP1)?

Slimserver installed just fine, yesterday (over 5.2.1), and was working just
fine (with 2 SqueezeBoxen and one copy of the latest SoftSqueeze...) until
this morning: when I got up, and found both Squeezebox displays blank. Ugh.

I usually have SlimServer start up automatically when I boot XP (which is
very rare -- as the system only runs SlimServer and Apache... -- and is
therefore usually up for months at a time...), and previous versions have
been running just dandy (...I only upgraded because I've ordered the new
display ;-). However, starting it manually (after reinstalling a couple of
times), I get the following:

* Both SlimServer.exe and Slim.exe try to start up...
* SlimServer.exe reaches 7,612 K; whilst Slim.exe gradually crawls to
55,204 K (or thereabouts), and then vanishes -- giving an error
signature of:

AppName: slim.exe
AppVer: 0.0.0.0
ModName: perl58.dll
ModVer: 5.8.1.807
Offset 00086b4a

...leaving SlimServer.exe running at 10,608 K, and a "page cannot be
displayed" error in the browser interface (...not to mention "Problem:
lost contact..." messages on my SBs, should I try to power them up).


I'm primarily a Mac user, so apologies if I'm missing something
obvious(!?!): but the XP box (2.8GHz Pentium 4; 1Gb of RAM; lots and lots of
disk-space...) has been immensely stable until now -- most of the time just
streaming 320k MP3s... -- so it looks (to my untutored eye, at least ;-)
that there's suddenly something wrong caused by the latest install, rather
than anything else....

Anyone care to suggest anything? If necessary, I'll go back to 5.2.1 -- but
wasn't sure if this would work with v.31 of the firmware?

Cheers...
--
- $.

Stephen R Ward
<srward (AT) srward (DOT) com>

Peter Olufsen
2004-08-05, 04:10
I have the same problem:

All running fine yesterday om 2004-08-04, after rebbot today slim.exe can't
start. I reinstalled 2004-08-03 but still slim.exe still crash ??

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen R Ward" <srward (AT) srward (DOT) com>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:16 AM
Subject: [slim] Problems with latest beta and XP


> Hi!
>
> I wondered if anyone else was having problems with 5.3.0b1 and XP
(5.1.2600
> SP1)?
>
> Slimserver installed just fine, yesterday (over 5.2.1), and was working
just
> fine (with 2 SqueezeBoxen and one copy of the latest SoftSqueeze...) until
> this morning: when I got up, and found both Squeezebox displays blank.
Ugh.
>
> I usually have SlimServer start up automatically when I boot XP (which is
> very rare -- as the system only runs SlimServer and Apache... -- and is
> therefore usually up for months at a time...), and previous versions have
> been running just dandy (...I only upgraded because I've ordered the new
> display ;-). However, starting it manually (after reinstalling a couple of
> times), I get the following:
>
> * Both SlimServer.exe and Slim.exe try to start up...
> * SlimServer.exe reaches 7,612 K; whilst Slim.exe gradually crawls to
> 55,204 K (or thereabouts), and then vanishes -- giving an error
> signature of:
>
> AppName: slim.exe
> AppVer: 0.0.0.0
> ModName: perl58.dll
> ModVer: 5.8.1.807
> Offset 00086b4a
>
> ...leaving SlimServer.exe running at 10,608 K, and a "page cannot be
> displayed" error in the browser interface (...not to mention "Problem:
> lost contact..." messages on my SBs, should I try to power them up).
>
>
> I'm primarily a Mac user, so apologies if I'm missing something
> obvious(!?!): but the XP box (2.8GHz Pentium 4; 1Gb of RAM; lots and lots
of
> disk-space...) has been immensely stable until now -- most of the time
just
> streaming 320k MP3s... -- so it looks (to my untutored eye, at least ;-)
> that there's suddenly something wrong caused by the latest install, rather
> than anything else....
>
> Anyone care to suggest anything? If necessary, I'll go back to 5.2.1 --
but
> wasn't sure if this would work with v.31 of the firmware?
>
> Cheers...
> --
> - $.
>
> Stephen R Ward
> <srward (AT) srward (DOT) com>
>
>