good! glad it's working for you....

If you do have any problems with any particular file do let me know! If it helps out with your big machine by letting you cut stuff from Sketchup then that's great! I did listen in and enjoyed the show! all i'll say is "you aint seen nothing yet" wait till you see how it develops!! there's some really cool stuff in the pipeline now we have this working.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

New Version 1.2.0 Now Uploaded...... Check first post in the thread.....

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

Fozzy--
Thank you!
Thank you!
Thank You!
Great tool!
Scott

 

No Problemo ewo.... It is a bit of a messy way of packaging it. I really must find a better way to do it, that doesn't require so much messing about at the user end of it.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

WOW! Nice work Julian. I've been really busy for the last couple of weeks and just starting to catch up on all the cool stuff happening on here.

This app looks awsome, looking forward to trying it out soon

Si.

 

Fozzy I tried out the last version, pretty neat program... but no worky on linux under wine.
I know I know, why would I run Linux anyhow..
But it worked as advertised under XP, great job!

 

OK.... Difficult for me to support a version running on Linux under what is effectively an emulator... Did the last version run on your Linux system?? If it did then that gives me some pointers to track down why this one doesn't.

However, I do suspect that it's to do with system calls that are given by the software in the printer output routine and the system module includes, that are required for print routines of that type. I will have a look at it for you. But it may not be possible to fix that one.

and I do Know why you'd want to run Linux ... I like it as well... It's a far better system all round than any flavour of windows. Just that personally I don't try to run foreign software on it. There's just too many problems mixing and matching stuff when you start doing that. But it is a far better system to begin with. I'd have written it for native Linux, but for the fact that we really have to stick with the OS that's in use by the majority. Much as it might not be the ideal way to do it.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

You know, Fozzy, this is the reason why many people, including me, don't use Linux. The programmer don't make sure it runs on Linux too. It they would, more people would use it. The selection for Windows is so big yet for Linux so small, I just stay with Windows, against my better judgment.

 

You are absolutely right about this.... The difficulty is, that developing for more than one system at once isn't just a simple matter of porting the software over to the other system.

It's a bit like back in the 80's when we had multiple different computers running their own OS and languages. Apple, Atari, MSX, Sinclair, BBC Acorn, Amiga, Amstrad, Oric, Dragon and a raft of others. It was always difficult to write entirely portable code.

Really It's now even more difficult, because "Microstuffed" Visual Studio languages are very very tied to the Windows platform and not at all portable. They make it even more difficult in that even their own OS's are not entirely compatible with each other. It's very difficult coding so that things will run on Win98, XP, Vista and Windows7 alone, I'd end up having to re-write it entirely to get it to run on Linux and you have to bear in mind that I'm a single individual with limited time and not an entire development team. Which is why I have to code for what the majority of people are running and if there are one or two who run something different, then I have to just throw in the towel at that point and say "sorry I just can't do it", because otherwise I'd never get anything completed.

It's unfortunate and I really would like to make sure that everybody can run it, on whatever hardware and OS they have, but unfortunately the reality of available time is what stops that happening.

However.... if someone else wants to take on porting it to another system then they just need to contact me and I'll hand them the source code to play with.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

I totally get it, Fozzy. I didn't mean it as a complain but rather as an observation. All I wanted to point out was that if more programs where available for Linux more people would have used it.

Enough of high-jacking this thread.

 

Typical Microsoft!!! They don't like to make it easy for anybody do they.

There is re-distributable version of Net framework 3.5 that doesn't try to connect to the internet and has all the components ready without doing that. I'm not sure that they make it easy to find on their servers though. I've been scouting around for it for you. I'll let you know if I figure out the correct URL for that. You might find it on MSDN Microsoft Developer Network.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

Don't worry!! I understood that. and I don't mind talking about it. It's not at all a thread hijack. It's a very valid thing to be talking about. My reply was as much, just an observation about "Microstuffed" and the way they try to tie people to their OS.

So thanks! I quite enjoy discussions like that. I like to hear other peoples opinions on those sort of things. I always think it's a good thing to hear what somebody else thinks, because this world would be a very dull place if we didn't listen to other people.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

That's just plain weird! If it's throwing the same error then your system is reporting that it doesn't have Net Framework or a component of it.... and clearly that's not the case so something else must be going wrong.

OK take a look in your control panel, and click on Add Remove Programs.....
Look down the list and see if any of the following are missing:
Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1
Microsoft .Net framework 2.0 service pack 2
Microsoft .Net Framework 3.0 service pack 2
Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 SP1

If any of those don't appear in the list then your .Net Framework install is incomplete. They're not mutually exclusive. That is to say that having .Net Framework 3.5 doesn't provide you with all the parts from the earlier versions. They all need to be there.

There should be a total of 10 files spilled out by the installer counting the licence agreement.

If all of the above is present and correct, then we'll have to give this a bit more thought to solve it for you.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

EDIT: It's just occoured to me that you're doing this from a base install without updates....
So I'll just run throught the proceedure and the order you should do it in.
1)Windows XP Install
2)XP Service Pack 2 install
3)XP Service Pack 3 install
(after that you should have the earlier .net framework components by default)
4)Check you have got the earlier .net framework components if not grab them from MS and install them.
5)Install .net framework 3.5
after that you should be good to go!

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

How do you tell what .net and updates you have installed? If it's the "add or remove programs" untility then mine just saids "Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0". On this paticular machine, I am only running winxp service pack 2. I can run the "Manglerizer" exe.

 

Kwok - in "Add or Remove Programs" try checking the "Show updates" box (near the top of the "Add or Remove Programs" window). It should show them all now.

 

Ok, did that. I don't see any updates, so I must just be using the stock .net 2.0 Could Randy's problem be something else? I see I have "Microsoft Visual c++ 2005 Redistributable" installed.

 

Well, here's what my "Add and Remove Programs" screen looks like. I unchecked the "Show updates" button so you could see them all.
I think he'll need to follow the instructions of Julian (Fozzy The Bear) to get the rest of them installed. Attached files