I have been using codewright for years and fired up an older machine
only to find codewright won't run anymore.  It gives the error,
"Instruction at 0x101624a5 referenced memory at 0x4a7125a3.  The
memory could not be read."  Any idea what could be wrong?  I don't see
where the new owners of the code are doing any support, they don't
even list it as a product, it only shows up on the store order page,
not in the products page.  This is ver 7.5

Rick

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT), rickman <g...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I have been using codewright for years and fired up an older machine
>only to find codewright won't run anymore.  It gives the error,
>"Instruction at 0x101624a5 referenced memory at 0x4a7125a3.  The
>memory could not be read."  Any idea what could be wrong?  I don't see
>where the new owners of the code are doing any support, they don't
>even list it as a product, it only shows up on the store order page,
>not in the products page.  This is ver 7.5

Total guess but could the developers have done something clever that's
now being trapped by Windows Data Execution Prevention (DEP)? This was
introduced (IIRC) with XP SP2, which could match the "older machine"
description. Give this a try if it is an XP box.
<http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/566/xp-sp2-how-to-turn-off-the-data-execution-prevention-feature-dep/>
It's reversible, so you shouldn't nuke the PC by trying this.

Also, too: Notepad++ rox (as the kids say nowadays ;-) and it's FOSS.
http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

On Jul 12, 2:08 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have been using codewright for years and fired up an older machine
> >only to find codewright won't run anymore.  It gives the error,
> >"Instruction at 0x101624a5 referenced memory at 0x4a7125a3.  The
> >memory could not be read."  Any idea what could be wrong?  I don't see
> >where the new owners of the code are doing any support, they don't
> >even list it as a product, it only shows up on the store order page,
> >not in the products page.  This is ver 7.5
>
> Total guess but could the developers have done something clever that's
> now being trapped by Windows Data Execution Prevention (DEP)? This was
> introduced (IIRC) with XP SP2, which could match the "older machine"
> description. Give this a try if it is an XP box.
> <http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/566/xp-sp2-how-to-turn-off-the-data-ex...>
> It's reversible, so you shouldn't nuke the PC by trying this.
>
> Also, too: Notepad++ rox (as the kids say nowadays ;-) and it's FOSS.http://notepad-plus-plus.org/
>
> --
> Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

Even older, a Win2k box.  I like Win2k for most things, but networking
was still pretty crude in terms of the user interface.  I still can't
get it to connect to my Vista machine either by Ethernet or wi-fi.  If
I could network them together I would just edit the files via the
Vista laptop.  Funny, I used to have the two Win2k desktops talking,
but not with Vista.

Heck, I am finding software that needs a special "hook" compiled in to
run and so far none of the software authors are willing to bother to
add the free library needed from Microsoft.  It may be nearing the end
of the road for this venerable machine.  I'm not sure how I'll do my
PC/104 work in the future.  This is my last machine with an ISA bus
slot.

Rick

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:40:51 -0700 (PDT), rickman <g...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 12, 2:08 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have been using codewright for years and fired up an older machine
>> >only to find codewright won't run anymore.  It gives the error,
>> >"Instruction at 0x101624a5 referenced memory at 0x4a7125a3.  The
>> >memory could not be read."  Any idea what could be wrong?  I don't see
>> >where the new owners of the code are doing any support, they don't
>> >even list it as a product, it only shows up on the store order page,
>> >not in the products page.  This is ver 7.5
>>
>> Total guess but could the developers have done something clever that's
>> now being trapped by Windows Data Execution Prevention (DEP)? This was
>> introduced (IIRC) with XP SP2, which could match the "older machine"
>> description. Give this a try if it is an XP box.
>> <http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/566/xp-sp2-how-to-turn-off-the-data-ex...>
>> It's reversible, so you shouldn't nuke the PC by trying this.
>>
>> Also, too: Notepad++ rox (as the kids say nowadays ;-) and it's FOSS.http://notepad-plus-plus.org/
>>
>> --
>> Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA
>
>Even older, a Win2k box.  I like Win2k for most things, but networking
>was still pretty crude in terms of the user interface.  I still can't
>get it to connect to my Vista machine either by Ethernet or wi-fi.  If
>I could network them together I would just edit the files via the
>Vista laptop.  Funny, I used to have the two Win2k desktops talking,
>but not with Vista.

That old, eh? How many years of cat hairs have accumulated on the heat
sinks? Also possible that you may have flaky memory (well, your
*machine* may have flaky memory); try running Memtest86 or Memtest86+
overnight.

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

This won't help you with getting CodeWright running, but if you are looking
for an alternative, I'd suggest Slickedit. It's much like CodeWrite but it
has a lot more features. It has all the emulation modes CodeWright had plus
some. It's lightweight and fast. It's also available on a lot of platforms.
It's not cheap, but I have a personal copy and have kept a maintenance
license active for the last seven years. I think it's well worth it.

After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWrite and after Borland killed
CodeWright I moved to Slickedit. I really hope they stay away from
Slickedit.

- Tim

	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.EmbeddedRelated.com

In article <7...@giganews.com>,
timkemp <t...@n_o_s_p_a_m.ephehm.com> wrote:
>This won't help you with getting CodeWright running, but if you are looking
>for an alternative, I'd suggest Slickedit. It's much like CodeWrite but it
>has a lot more features. It has all the emulation modes CodeWright had plus
>some. It's lightweight and fast. It's also available on a lot of platforms.
>It's not cheap, but I have a personal copy and have kept a maintenance
>license active for the last seven years. I think it's well worth it.
>
>After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWrite and after Borland killed
>CodeWright I moved to Slickedit. I really hope they stay away from
>Slickedit.

Looking at emacs and vim Edwin decided to write his own editor.
That was 1983. I had some design influence.
Now I have an editor that runs everywhere there is a c-compiler
and curses like thingy. It is configurable. The editor has
two users and I'm the only one who configured it like Wordstar.
Using it right now.

>
>- Tim

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On 7/13/2012 1:15 PM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
[...]
>> After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWrite and after Borland killed
>> CodeWright I moved to Slickedit. I really hope they stay away from
>> Slickedit.

<sarcastic-mode ON>
Microsoft bought Skype and Google bought YouTube, why should Borland
stay away from Slickedit? Only if it sucks.
<sarcastic-mode OFF>
> 
> Looking at emacs and vim Edwin decided to write his own editor.
> That was 1983. I had some design influence.
> Now I have an editor that runs everywhere there is a c-compiler
> and curses like thingy. It is configurable. The editor has
> two users and I'm the only one who configured it like Wordstar.

Considering the OP is frequently posting also on comp.lang.vhdl I would
definitely suggest Emacs (on Windows 2k/XP/Vista/7...). The learning
curve might be a little steep at the beginning but the payback is huge.

The electric-mode for vhdl is outstanding, with templates for any sort
of language construct.

You learn it once, you use it forever.

> Using it right now.
> 

To be honest I failed to understand which editor you use.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:58:02 -0500, timkemp wrote:

> This won't help you with getting CodeWright running, but if you are
> looking for an alternative, I'd suggest Slickedit. It's much like
> CodeWrite but it has a lot more features. It has all the emulation modes
> CodeWright had plus some. It's lightweight and fast. It's also available
> on a lot of platforms.
> It's not cheap, but I have a personal copy and have kept a maintenance
> license active for the last seven years. I think it's well worth it.
> 
> After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWrite and after Borland killed
> CodeWright I moved to Slickedit. I really hope they stay away from
> Slickedit.

After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWright, and after Borland 
killed CodeWright I looked around for a while, then finally started using 
Eclipse.

You get used to it, and while it's undergone incremental changes over the 
last decade, it hasn't undergone any huge stupid "improvements".

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:06:21 -0500, Tim Wescott
<t...@seemywebsite.please> wrote:

>After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWright, and after Borland 
>killed CodeWright I looked around for a while, then finally started using 
>Eclipse.
>
>You get used to it, and while it's undergone incremental changes over the 
>last decade, it hasn't undergone any huge stupid "improvements".

Yeah, but unlike Brief or Codewright, Eclipse is "clunky" to use.  I
tried SlickEdit (which somebody else mentioned) but I personally found
it to be a bit too intrusive.  

I've been using UltraEdit for a while and have been reasonably happy
with it ... it's cross platform, doesn't get in the way and in
operation it feels (to me) very similar to the good old (5.5)
Codewright.

George

George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:06:21 -0500, Tim Wescott
> <t...@seemywebsite.please> wrote:
>
>> After Borland killed Brief I moved to CodeWright, and after Borland
>> killed CodeWright I looked around for a while, then finally started using
>> Eclipse.
>>
>> You get used to it, and while it's undergone incremental changes over the
>> last decade, it hasn't undergone any huge stupid "improvements".
>
> Yeah, but unlike Brief or Codewright, Eclipse is "clunky" to use.  I
> tried SlickEdit (which somebody else mentioned) but I personally found
> it to be a bit too intrusive.
>

it's survivable. I find Eclipse clunky still.

> I've been using UltraEdit for a while and have been reasonably happy
> with it ... it's cross platform, doesn't get in the way and in
> operation it feels (to me) very similar to the good old (5.5)
> Codewright.
>
> George
>


Brief is actually back. http://www.briefeditor.com/


--
Les Cargill