Stellarium will not run....

Feedback
2009-02-26
2012-10-09
  • Clifton Hipsher

    Clifton Hipsher - 2009-02-26

    I recently upgraded to Vista Home Premium 64-bit and I cannot get any version of Stellarium to run.

    On startup I get the same error message that Stellarium.exe has stopped working. I have tried every thing imaginable, but so far no joy.

    Could this be a pathing error? The reason I ask is the Application evev viewer shows an access violation, and I believe this is related to upgrading over XP Pro SP3. Apparentle Vista keeps shortcuts for the old Local and Applications Data folders, but not the folders themselves. This makes me think that Stellarium is trying to write to folders that do not exist.

    Thoughts?

    Thanks!

    Cliff Hipsher.

     
    • barrykgerdes

      barrykgerdes - 2009-02-26

      See the thread "0.10.1 stopped working. You may have problems with Vista permissions.

      Barry

       
    • Matthew Gates

      Matthew Gates - 2009-02-26

      I think you will need a build which is specifically made for a 64 bit Vista system. I don't have access to the 64 bit vista system on which to do such a build... maybe someone in the community has tried it?

      Matthew

       
      • Clifton Hipsher

        Clifton Hipsher - 2009-02-26

        I fixedf it.

        I did some digging and discovered that ATI's Catalyst Control Center is the root of the problem. To prove this I did a clean install of Vista HP 64-bit to a spare drive and then I installed Stellarium. It ran, but rith ridiculously low (0.04) frame rates.

        I installed the full ATI suite and Stellarium crashed at startup.

        I uninstalled CCC, reinstalled just the driver, and Stellarium ran with frame rates from the mid-50's to the low 60's.

        I tested this on my boot installation, and it works.

        I am about to post this to the Software Forum on Cloudy Nights.

        Clear Skies!!!

         
    • barrykgerdes

      barrykgerdes - 2009-02-27

      Hi Matthew

      From the a log.txt file in the "0.10.1 stopped working" It apears that Stellarium automatically selects 32 bit address mode on start up when running a 64 bit computer with Vista installed.

      Quote:
      2009-02-23T10:32:08
      C:\Program Files (x86)\Stellarium\stellarium.exe
      Windows Vista
      Compiled with GCC 3.4.2
      Qt runtime version: 4.4.3
      Qt compilation version: 4.4.3
      Addressing mode: 32-bit
      Total memory: 3838 MB (unreliable)
      Total virtual memory: 2047 MB (unreliable)
      Physical memory in use: 38%
      Processor speed: 2400 MHz
      Processor name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
      Processor speed: 2400 MHz
      Processor name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
      Processor speed: 2400 MHz
      Processor name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
      Processor speed: 2400 MHz
      Processor name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz


      [ This is Stellarium 0.10.1 - http://www.stellarium.org ]
      [ Copyright (C) 2000-2009 Fabien Chereau et al ]


      Writing log file to: "C:/Users/fmr/AppData/Roaming/Stellarium/log.txt"
      File search paths:
      0 . "C:/Users/fmr/AppData/Roaming/Stellarium"
      1 . "."
      Config file is: "C:/Users/fmr/AppData/Roaming/Stellarium/config.ini"
      config file "C:/Users/fmr/AppData/Roaming/Stellarium/config.ini" does not exist -
      ---------- etc

      Barry

       
      • Matthew Gates

        Matthew Gates - 2009-02-27

        Oh, 32 bit compatibility mode, nice. I didn't want to assume it.

        Matthew

         
      • Mike Storm

        Mike Storm - 2009-02-27

        Stellarium can't select its addressing mode; only the compiler can do that. If log.txt says 32-bit mode, then he's running a binary compiled for 32-bit.

        That said, I don't know if that's the issue. AMD64 is backwards-compatible with IA32, which means that 32-bit code can run on a 64-bit machine without changes - usually. Vista might choke on it for some reason. Or it could be a permissions problem, as Barry said. But I'll stay away from rampant speculation :-).

        Mike

         
    • barrykgerdes

      barrykgerdes - 2009-02-27

      Hi Mike and Matthew

      I think the processor manufactures would be in a bit of a problem if their 64 bit processors would not run 32 bit and 16 bit compiled programs. Fancy having to rewrite all that (favourite) material we have accumulated over the years.

      However 64 bit programs obviously won't run on lesser platforms unless someone builds a "win64" program like was done with windows 3.11 and its "Win32" program so that 32 bit programs could run on the 16 bit platform. The most notable program in this catagory was RealSky which enabled Windows 3.11 to read the DSS.

      Barry

       
      • Matthew Gates

        Matthew Gates - 2009-02-27

        I've not experience of 64 bit windows. I think that 64 bit versions of Linux are generally working pretty well (although I did have some problems with 64 bit ubuntu recently). I realise that 32 bit instructions can run [only some of?] on these CPUs, but that's not the same thing as the OS providing full 32 bit compatibility.

        A typical problem people run into on 64-bit Linux is getting 32-bit binaries like flash working. This is possible, but dynamically linked libraries are often a sticking point - all such libraries used by some binary must have a 32 bit version on the system. In the base of flash, one must run a 32 bit firefox because the plash plugin is linked to it at runtime.

        Windows taking dlls from the same directory as the .exe is good here I suppose, so long as the app vendor ships copies of dlls with their binary but I don't know how the system dlls would be handled in this case. Maybe MS have a solution for it.

        Has anyone had any success with Stellarium on 64 bit Windows?

        Matthew

         


Anonymous

Cancel  Add attachments





Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.





No, thanks