Text 410, 57 rader
Skriven 2007-01-23 09:24:30 av Mike Luther (1:117/3001.0)
    Kommentar till text 408 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
Ärende: Seamonkey
=================
Yes Peter ..

 ML> Which Innotek font engine are you using?  There are not 
 ML> only issues like you describe, but also issues with the 
 ML> whole Innotek and font engine releases which may be 
 ML> affecting you, including SYS trap issues which can be 
 ML> involved here.   

 PK> Hmmm, interesting... I have never seen any issues 
 PK> regarding the Innotek Font Engine v2.40 here, at least 
 PK> not with the Production release. I have heard that 
 PK> some people see the odd problem with the latest v.260 
 PK> beta 1 release, but not the production one.

Of a substantial number of units that cover all kinds of hardware and software
combinations and uses for my own use and folks I help, I hit this on only
three.  In my case I got this only on SCSI drive boxes with two of the three ..
which really started me thinking.  Then I hit it on one of two IBM Thinkpads
for someone I help, a T42P.  Her R51 never showed it.  That's when I discovered
that I couldn't use the download files from Innotek with the later date, and
there were slight differences in the same name files with a byte comparison
display utility.  What I had done was download the few days later comparison
from the Innotek site individually on these boxes, installed the tools.
Originally all this worked just fine!

Then abruptly, here came the errors in the Seamonkey game all these months and
months later!  I had one system here on the Rose KVM rack cluster of Interlogic
professional cases and one of my remote site telecommications control systems
showed it, as well as this other person's T42P just suddenly blew up.  The
research took a good while and was finally cured with files from the original
download of this date.

I burned the earlier files that worked onto CD-ROM service support media I use
and made sure they are in my support archive sources.  I did the described
process of re-installing the 240 official release into all the boxes.  Then hit
the issue that the 260 beta had to be there for the slightly different error
that produces.  But .. you have to first clean up the 240 base error before you
perform the 260 beta overlay to get it clean! Strange.

At some point many months ago after the discussion erupted in the Newsgroups,
it seems that Innotek fixed this issue on their server.  So I think, the
current offering does not contain the apparent error that lets you install,
then see this wierd effect only on some boxes!  I've never seen any comment
about this from people who are just now going down the fontzy trail with
current files.

Thank you for still being here Peter.  You are a real contribution to us all..


--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

Mike @ 1:117/3001



--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)