Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Re: OS/2 - ArcaOS Santa's List for 2025

« Last post by Jochen Schäfer on Today at 09:06:54 am »

[..]
sh*t. I was hoping there was a better solution.
AFAIK also PortableGL has its limits (TinyGL is good but even more limited).

Mentore

It has. While the examples worked, I couldn't get it to work with Classicube.

2

General Discussion / Re: OS/2 - ArcaOS Santa's List for 2025

« Last post by Paul Smedley on Today at 08:52:46 am »

What about mesaGL? I don't remember its current status. A slow renderer would still be better than no renderer at all...
Mentore

I visited it, seven years back, and got it compiling and the examples ran good. [https://github.com/OS2World/LIB-GRAPHICS-WarpMesaGL.
Problem is that it is old. Gives gl.h while now it is gl2.h that is required.

sh*t. I was hoping there was a better solution.
AFAIK also PortableGL has its limits (TinyGL is good but even more limited).

Mesa GL's softpipe might be sufficient...

3

Hardware / Re: Monitor suggestions

« Last post by Andi B. on Today at 08:43:27 am »

What other device drivers, especially the IFS stuff, are you loading? What size cache are you defining for these?

The symptoms you describe all look & feel like the "out of memory" stuff I was seeing when testing the very large (>1G) JFS cache sizes here.

I usually let the IFS stuff as it is defined by ArcaOS installer. For older systems I also don't have big JFS cache. HPFS386 is remed out since long as it produces similar problems.

'mem -v' - my last tests on a pretty vanilla ArcaOS system I build up last week leads to 'out of memory' even when trying to open 4os2 or cmd windows. Sometimes afterwards it magically worked for one session but no more. -> very weird behavior with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=3072. Reminds me on same experience a few years ago with another system.

So for me I can't get any system to work only near reliable with 3072. Wild guess, it may interfere with my 3840 x 2160 resolution. My observations lead me to guess there is a memory problem with the WPS or gradd or VMAN or ... with this high resolution too.

Administrator - this now runs very off topic. Maybe you wann split this thread. Thanks.

4

General Discussion / Re: OS/2 - ArcaOS Santa's List for 2025

« Last post by Mentore on Today at 08:28:26 am »

What about mesaGL? I don't remember its current status. A slow renderer would still be better than no renderer at all...
Mentore

I visited it, seven years back, and got it compiling and the examples ran good. [https://github.com/OS2World/LIB-GRAPHICS-WarpMesaGL.
Problem is that it is old. Gives gl.h while now it is gl2.h that is required.

sh*t. I was hoping there was a better solution.
AFAIK also PortableGL has its limits (TinyGL is good but even more limited).

Mentore

5

Internet / Re: Dooble releases-Qt6

« Last post by Dave Yeo on Today at 02:48:34 am »

Profile corruption? If you remember the page that triggered the exception, you could go to \home\.dooble\WebEnginePersistentStorage\IndexDB and move the entry out of the way and see if that helps

6

Internet / Re: Dooble releases-Qt6

« Last post by Remy on Today at 12:49:44 am »

Ok, I think having found, I left automatic CPU speed increase (Turbo boost) enable under BIOS.
Now disabled.

Seems more stable. One silent close but this time, i've got more informations into stdout logs:
[94:39:1208/234436.722000:ERROR:indexed_db_factory_impl.cc(595)] Failed to GetDBSizeFromEnv: IO error: /000039.log: File not found

 

7

Hardware / Re: Monitor suggestions

« Last post by Per E. Johannessen on December 08, 2024, 06:27:42 pm »

Forgot to mention that chkdsk has been run several times without any errors and nothing in populog either.

Although the Radeon offers lots of resolutions it's not stable enough for the time being.
I put back the Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti and connected with DP it now offers a max resolution of 1920x1080 and so far it seems stable
with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT = 2816

8

Hardware / Re: Monitor suggestions

« Last post by Dariusz Piatkowski on December 08, 2024, 03:04:28 pm »

Hi Andi,

Now I've here two systems which behave very strange when trying to use VIRTUALADDRESSLIMT = 3072. I've not a single system/installation which works okay with this setting. I've the same intermediate 'out of memory' errors loading some programs...

What other device drivers, especially the IFS stuff, are you loading? What size cache are you defining for these?

The symptoms you describe all look & feel like the "out of memory" stuff I was seeing when testing the very large (>1G) JFS cache sizes here.

On a running system, can you capture the output of mem.exe?

Here is what I see after 2 days of uptime:

Code: [Select]

[G:\util\misc]mem /v

Total physical memory:     12,287 MB
Accessible to system:       3,327 MB
Additional (PAE) memory:    8,960 MB

Resident memory:            1,187 MB
Available virtual memory:     430 MB

Available process memory:
  Private low memory:         179 MB
  Private high memory:      1,344 MB
  Shared low memory:           67 MB
  Shared high memory:         282 MB

Can you do this BEFORE and AFTER the issue appears?

9

Hardware / Re: Monitor suggestions

« Last post by Andi B. on December 08, 2024, 10:30:46 am »

it again gives the "Couldn't load xul.dll". This is with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMT = 3072.
With VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=2560 it boots ok until it is about to start the desktop and then it goes black.

Now I've here two systems which behave very strange when trying to use VIRTUALADDRESSLIMT = 3072. I've not a single system/installation which works okay with this setting. I've the same intermediate 'out of memory' errors loading some programs. That's what in my config.sys about -

Code: [Select]

REM 20210711 VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=2560 to 3072 because of qt browser
REM 20210711 neither simplebrowser nor Seamonkey nor ndpiso plugin works with 3072 -> 2900
REM 20211023 changed to 0xXX00 as Dave suggested in AN Testers from 2850 to 2816
VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=2816

I've to add OpenOffice and VirtualBox also give such errors sometimes with 3072.

10

Hardware / Re: Monitor suggestions

« Last post by ivan on December 08, 2024, 08:50:53 am »

Regarding your problem on 'G', have you run CHKDSK against that drive?