Windows can't habdle large images

Main Page | Report this Page

Linux Forum Index » Linux Advocacy » Windows can't habdle large images

Page 5 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Windows can't habdle large images

Author

Message

Peter Jensen

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:02 pm

Guest

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

Quote:

Bottom line: if an OS can't deal with incorrectly written application
software or drivers -- then it's not very good.

Open mouth. Insert foot. How's that crow taste?

FFS, how many clues do you need? Bailo is a nitwit, a fool. If you
haven't figured that out and started ignoring him by now, then you're
only little better than him. Just do what everyone eventually does and
ignore him. He's not competent to speak about anything relevant to
COLA, and he's *definitely* no Linux advocate.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCqLx8d1ZThqotgfgRArbtAJ9bMUSxOUXLkYEuS53BzLnWbaspxwCdGFWe
kJlsp9uzr5nBdM038qE0BcA=
=ueMq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

When you learn how to program, we'll worry about compiling your code. Until
then, we'll just point and laugh. -- High opinions of X.CPP

jabailo@texeme.com

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:22 pm

Guest

lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

Quote:

These people are either mentally unstable and suffer from paranoid
delusions or outright liars.

You can take your hand out of your vest now, Napoleon.

Larry Qualig

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:16 pm

Guest

<jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:_omdnZTexOqGXDXfRVn-iw@speakeasy.net...

Quote:

lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

These people are either mentally unstable and suffer from paranoid
delusions or outright liars.

You can take your hand out of your vest now, Napoleon.

and you can walk out of your apartment, make a left on 108th Ave and then go
to the end of the block until you reach 256th street. When you get there
take your toys out and play in the road for a while. Don't worry about the
cars and trucks... they're your friend!

DFS

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 pm

Guest

Tim Smith wrote:

Quote:

In article <dk1qe.2$Ub4.0@fe06.lga>, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of Windows
running some display drivers can't handle some large images" you *might*
have been right.

WinXP Pro, installed from my original CD, with no updates or patches,
under VMWare on my Linux machine: Flashes a blue screen, reboots, and
gives a message saying there may have been a problem with the video
driver.

Well there you go.

Quote:

WinXP Pro, SP2, installed off the VirtualPC CD, running under VirtualPC
on my Mac: rebooted.

Win Server 2003 Standard, installed from my MSDN CD, with a few security
updates, no SP1: opens fine in IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.0.4.

Tim Smith

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:36 pm

Guest

In article <26qdnb2zH72GPTXfRVn-oA@ctc.net>,
robert <root@wheel.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

The odds that everyone who has had this problem is using the same
video driver are probably pretty long. Did you test with multiple
src's as suggested

How so? There are only a handful of video drivers nowadays.

Here's some of the nvidia, ati and matrox drivers available for
XP/2000. It's tad more than a "handful":

Not really. Take the NVidia driver(s), for example. First, many people
will be using the latest version. Most of the rest will be using a
recent version. Furthermore, all the different releases will share a
lot of code. A bug like this will likely be in several versions before
the one it is finally discovered in.

Same goes for the other drivers.

So, for this kind of thing, basically people fall into only three or
four groups (NVidia driver users, ATI driver users, etc).

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:57 pm

Guest

In article <dk1qe.2$Ub4.0@fe06.lga>, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:

Quote:

Now had you said "Some web browsers running on some versions of Windows
running some display drivers can't handle some large images" you *might*
have been right.

WinXP Pro, installed from my original CD, with no updates or patches,
under VMWare on my Linux machine: Flashes a blue screen, reboots, and
gives a message saying there may have been a problem with the video
driver.

WinXP Pro, SP2, installed off the VirtualPC CD, running under VirtualPC
on my Mac: rebooted.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:27 pm

Guest

In article <1V2qe.12948$cN2.7979@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
Jim <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

ok, tried it on Knoppix/QEMU version 3.8 CD, default boot kernel, FF
1.0.1; no effect, except it didn't even attempt to load the image.
Machine (this one) just kept right on chugging away.

I say kernel.

Firefox on my Linux box, displayed on my Mac's X server, appears to load
and scale the image. That is, I get scroll bars that have a very large
range, and a background that appears to be a solid color. As I scroll
around, the color occasionally changes. I think each pixel of the image
is scaled up several screens in size, which is why I mostly just see
solid colors.

Same when displayed on my Linux machine's X server.

Firefox on my Mac, and Safari on my Mac, display a huge white area with
scroll bars.

On both the Mac and Linux, this happens right away. There is no slow
down or no large memory use.

--
--Tim Smith

Tom Shelton

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:31 pm

Guest

On 2005-06-10, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

Quote:

In article <1V2qe.12948$cN2.7979@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
Jim <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote:
ok, tried it on Knoppix/QEMU version 3.8 CD, default boot kernel, FF
1.0.1; no effect, except it didn't even attempt to load the image.
Machine (this one) just kept right on chugging away.

I say kernel.

Firefox on my Linux box, displayed on my Mac's X server, appears to load
and scale the image. That is, I get scroll bars that have a very large
range, and a background that appears to be a solid color. As I scroll
around, the color occasionally changes. I think each pixel of the image
is scaled up several screens in size, which is why I mostly just see
solid colors.

Same when displayed on my Linux machine's X server.

Firefox on my Mac, and Safari on my Mac, display a huge white area with
scroll bars.

On both the Mac and Linux, this happens right away. There is no slow
down or no large memory use.

I just tried it on Firefox on my Gentoo linux system. It loaded almost
immediately. It looks like a gradiant immage to me... But, it loaded
on XP Pro for me as well, just very, very slowly. It scrolled slowly as
well. So, I killed IE. But, no reboot/BSOD.

--
Tom Shelton

jabailo@texeme.com

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:59 pm

Guest

Tom Shelton wrote:

Quote:

Just got home and tried it on my XP system.

AMD Athlon 2400, 1/2 G memory.
nVideo GeForce FX 5200

This time it rebooted using */Firefox/* !!!

Man, this is a bad bug....REALLY BAD!

Tom Shelton

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:18 pm

Guest

On 2005-06-10, jabailo@texeme.com <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote:

Quote:

Tom Shelton wrote:

I just tried it on Firefox on my Gentoo linux system. It loaded almost
immediately. It looks like a gradiant immage to me... But, it loaded
on XP Pro for me as well, just very, very slowly. It scrolled slowly as
well. So, I killed IE. But, no reboot/BSOD.

Just got home and tried it on my XP system.

AMD Athlon 2400, 1/2 G memory.
nVideo GeForce FX 5200

This time it rebooted using */Firefox/* !!!

Man, this is a bad bug....REALLY BAD!

No reboot on either of my XP boxes... I guess I'm lucky.

--
Tom Shelton

Tom Shelton

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:21 pm

Guest

On 2005-06-10, jabailo@texeme.com <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote:

Quote:

By the way... What version of the nVidia drivers are you using? Your
not using the oem or the windows update versions are you? If you are,
then I would suggest getting the latest directly from nVidia. One of my
XP boxes at work would BSOD at least once a day with the last update
from MS. I went and downloaded the one from nVidida - and it went away.

--
Tom Shelton

Mart van de Wege

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:24 pm

Guest

Tom Shelton <tom@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> writes:

Quote:

In article <pan.2005.06.09.16.11.21.771173@rapskat.com>, rapskat wrote:
begin Error Log for Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:16:51 -0700 - lqualig@uku.co.uk
caused an invalid page fault at address
1118323011.742032.307010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, details as
follows:

Save your data before. The machine will BSOD

Tried it. No BSOD. No crash. IE simply doesn't display the image with a
width and height of 9999999. Dropping a digit (999999) shows the image
but it's very slow. Dropping another digit (99999) shows the image and
scrolling is sluggish but usable.

Nice FUD though. BSOD... now that would be a lie.

How is it a "lie" when it has been confirmed by other people? Perhaps it
depends on the amount of total memory you have on your system as to
whether it actually crashes or not.

The point here is that a friggin WEB BROWSER has the capability of
potentially crashing a Windows system simply because the platform will
allocate all available memory to trying to display this massive graphic,
even to the point of taking away memory from its core components.

It's a video driver error - it has nothing to do with memory. It works on
my little 64MB nVidia card that's in this box. Sure, it slows things
down, but it doesn't crash. The problem is crappy video drivers

I most certainly don't think so. The video driver causing the BSOD is
*not* the problem, it is the symptom.

The problem is that, for the zillionth time, a bug has popped in IE
where the programmers didn't check their input, allowing IE to request
a too large amount of memory. The attempt to display a large image may
trigger other problems in the video driver causing a BSOD, but the
faulty component is most certainly IE, and therefore the Operating
System itself.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

DFS

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:55 pm

Guest

Kier wrote:

Quote:

I get you.
True.
I agree.
I'm glad you do.
I like it too.

Like I said, unless talking to a "Wintroll", cola is just one big "I agree"
lovefest.

Tom Shelton wrote:

Quote:

In fact, I've been looking a lot into the freedesktop
standards lately, as well as the xdg python libraries. I'm not a python
guru - but, I've sort of been giving my self a crash course in
converting those libraries to C#. It helps me to see understand the
standards somewhat better when I can look at an implementation of it Smile

Kier said:

Quote:

I wish I had that kind of knowledge. Still, there's plenty of time for me
to learn Smile

If you want to learn programming for Linux, start with 'Learning Perl' or
'C++ in 24 Hours' or a 'Python for Absolute Beginners' book. That's if
you're going to stay in the... shudder... Linux environment.

All three will probably put you to sleep.

If you want to learn something interestinga and useful in Windows, check out
Visual Basic/VB for Applications. Those are easy to use and powerful.
Linux morons scoff at them, while millions of programmers and businesses
run on them.

Many databases have their own programming languages that are valuable to
know: Oracle PL/SQL and MS SQL Server T-SQL are two big ones.

rapskat

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:44 am

Guest

begin Error Log for Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:08:46 -0700 - lqualig@uku.co.uk
caused an invalid page fault at address
<1118347726.064667.37560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, details as
follows:

Quote:

URL, please. With a date.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145563

It's recent enough - from 2005.

So what's the "big-story" here? That kernel mode drivers are capable of
taking down a OS. Hardly news is it?

Hello Mr. FUDdite, first of all, if you read the entire thread, you would
see that the reported issue was not necessarily related to any kernel mode
drivers. Second of all, the issue seems to have been pretty much
isolated, since there were no other reports of this type, so the problem
may have well been related to that particular hardware, setup or config..

"One thing worth noting is that we only had problems on our SAN
attached servers (5 of them). All other servers (4) running local
SCSI raid controllers have not had any problems."

Next, you are assuming that the problem mentioned by the OP is related to
drivers based only on the report from Windows, which is misleading to say
the least. Windows would only report the apparent cause of the crash, not
the actual problem itself.

It stands to reason that there is a problem somewhere with how Windows
itself handles requests for inordinate amounts of memory allocations for
certain kernel mode drivers. I was under the impression that an
enterprise class operating system would have checks and balances in effect
to protect critical core processes from doing naughty things like this.

It's kind of like how the bartender is responsible for who gets served.
The doorman checks to verify that the person is of legal age to enter, but
the bartender is the one who has to verify that the person is not too
drunk to be continually served. If the bartender continues to serve
someone even after it is obvious that they are well past what should be
construed as their limit and as a result end up harming themselves or
someone else, then who is the one responsible - the bartender or the
person ordering?

In the same way, Windows is responsible to ensure that no one process
exceeds what should be construed as the limit for any resources
that could detrimentally affect the overall system.

Linux does this, obviously Windows XP doesn't. I would be curious to know
if 2003 is also subject to this vulnerability.

--
rapskat - 02:23:08 up 4:09, 2 users, load average: 2.00, 1.53, 1.37
"Windows XP will now attempt to blow chunks across your primary
partition. Press any key to continue..."

rapskat

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:56 am

Guest

begin Error Log for Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:28:04 -0400 - "DFS"
<nospam@dfs_.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<7L0qe.895$1v7.364@fe04.lga>, details as follows:

Quote:

Then Linux stinks to high heaven. I recently installed an ATI 9600
card, and when I next booted Linux it installed the driver and booted up
fine and I thought everything was working OK. It even seemed a bit
snappier, and it ran some of the [suck-ass] 3D games it previously
wouldn't run with the onboard video (Intel 865G Extreme Graphics).

And Linux stinks because it automagically recognized and setup the new
video card without any interaction from you?

Yet when XP does this, it's a good thing, right?

Quote:

But when I went into harddrake to change the screen resolution, it
filled the screen with mumbo-jumbo. The mouse was working, but there
was nothing but a mess on the screen. So I had to hardboot.

Linux does resolutions different than Windows does. Windows resizes the
screen to fit within the specified video resolution, it doesn't actually
change the video resolution per se. Linux, OTOH, has screen size AND
resolution, so when you change one, you are not necessarily changing the
other. If you push the actual video resolution beyond what the
capabilities of the hardware (vid card and/or monitor) are, you will get
garbage.

And you didn't *have* to cycle the box to fix this, of course this is the
first resort of a trained wintard.

Quote:

I'm sure some cola nut reader will blame me, or the ATI driver, or
anything but the OS.

The OS was simply doing what you told it to do, the fact that you told it
to do something that was not possible with your existing hardware +
settings is not the fault of the platform.

Quote:

This kind of thing is exactly why Linux is not ready for the desktop -
and probably never will be.

ITYM *you* are not ready for a Linux desktop - and probably never will be.
Stick to Windows, where at least you can pretend you have a clue.

--
rapskat - 02:46:26 up 4:32, 2 users, load average: 0.74, 0.67, 1.07
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at
least one instruction--from which, by induction, it is evident that every
program can be reduced to one instruction that does not work.

Page 5 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:35 pm Linux Forum Index