responding to http://www.electrondepot.com/embedded/codewright-error-124860-.htm , Nick wrote:> ysrebrnik wrote: > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:24:45 PM UTC+3, rickman 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 > >=20 > > Rick > > Try to reinstall CodeWright, it should help. I am using all the time > in=20 > everyday work CW 7.5 with Win XP SP3 with no problems. Sometimes CW > stucks,= > probably when turning the mouse wheel quickly - probably CW is not 100 > % c= > ompatible with Win XP.=20 > It's a pity that CW is stopped being supported. I will pass to Win 7 > soon a= > nd I=20 > hope CW will continue to exist. CW is probably one of the best editors > ever= > came. Rest to remind some of its features like: Synchronisation with > Visua= > l SourceSafe, F5 - possibility to split the same file into two windows, > whi= > ch enables editing the same file in two different locations. F7 - F8 > Macro = > editing and many other features. >Hi. I have searched over the internet about Codewright 5.1 and i found on this forum some old topics. I need to buy Codewright 5.1 and i see this is not valid anymore because is an very old. Can anyone help me PLEASE with a demo evaluation copy ?! Thank you so much Nick
Re: CodeWright Error
Started by ●October 1, 2015
Reply by ●October 1, 20152015-10-01
On 10/1/2015 9:37 AM, Nick wrote:> responding to > http://www.electrondepot.com/embedded/codewright-error-124860-.htm , Nick > wrote: >> ysrebrnik wrote: >> >> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:24:45 PM UTC+3, rickman 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 >> >=20 >> > Rick >> >> Try to reinstall CodeWright, it should help. I am using all the time >> in=20 >> everyday work CW 7.5 with Win XP SP3 with no problems. Sometimes CW >> stucks,= >> probably when turning the mouse wheel quickly - probably CW is not 100 >> % c= >> ompatible with Win XP.=20 >> It's a pity that CW is stopped being supported. I will pass to Win 7 >> soon a= >> nd I=20 >> hope CW will continue to exist. CW is probably one of the best editors >> ever= >> came. Rest to remind some of its features like: Synchronisation with >> Visua= >> l SourceSafe, F5 - possibility to split the same file into two windows, >> whi= >> ch enables editing the same file in two different locations. F7 - F8 >> Macro = >> editing and many other features. >> > > > > Hi. I have searched over the internet about Codewright 5.1 and i found > on this > forum some old topics. I need to buy Codewright 5.1 and i see this is > not valid anymore because is an > very old. > Can anyone help me PLEASE with a demo evaluation copy ?! > Thank you so much > NickAs you say, Codewright 5.1 is very old. I think you can still buy Codewright if you must, but it is likely the latest version which I believe is 7.5. I seriously doubt you will find a copy of 5.1 -- Rick
Reply by ●October 1, 20152015-10-01
> > Hi. I have searched over the internet about Codewright 5.1 and i found > on this > forum some old topics. I need to buy Codewright 5.1 and i see this is > not valid anymore because is an > very old. > Can anyone help me PLEASE with a demo evaluation copy ?! > Thank you so much > Nick > >I have to ask - /why/ are you desperate to get hold of an outdated version of an outdated editor? There was a time when CodeWrite was a top-range programmer's editor, and worth paying for - but these days there is a wide range of free editors, many with far more features than CodeWrite ever had (and others that are lighter and faster - not everyone wants a big and powerful editor). I can understand that someone who has been using CodeWrite for years would want to keep using it, but I cannot see why anyone would want it now. I have a manual for CodeWrite 5 on my shelf, from 1997. It sits beside some LANtastic for DOS guides, right next to an 8" floppy disk.
Reply by ●October 1, 20152015-10-01
David Brown wrote:> >> >> Hi. I have searched over the internet about Codewright 5.1 and i found >> on this >> forum some old topics. I need to buy Codewright 5.1 and i see this is >> not valid anymore because is an >> very old. >> Can anyone help me PLEASE with a demo evaluation copy ?! >> Thank you so much >> Nick >> >> > > I have to ask - /why/ are you desperate to get hold of an outdated > version of an outdated editor? There was a time when CodeWrite was a > top-range programmer's editor, and worth paying for - but these days > there is a wide range of free editors, many with far more features than > CodeWrite ever had (and others that are lighter and faster - not > everyone wants a big and powerful editor). I can understand that > someone who has been using CodeWrite for years would want to keep using > it, but I cannot see why anyone would want it now. > > I have a manual for CodeWrite 5 on my shelf, from 1997. It sits beside > some LANtastic for DOS guides, right next to an 8" floppy disk. >Choice of editor is personal, and not really something people have to defend. CodeWright's BRIEF emulation mode is better than the others. Espilon appears to be interesting & cross-platform. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 1, 20152015-10-01
On 01/10/15 19:22, Les Cargill wrote:> David Brown wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi. I have searched over the internet about Codewright 5.1 and i found >>> on this >>> forum some old topics. I need to buy Codewright 5.1 and i see this is >>> not valid anymore because is an >>> very old. >>> Can anyone help me PLEASE with a demo evaluation copy ?! >>> Thank you so much >>> Nick >>> >>> >> >> I have to ask - /why/ are you desperate to get hold of an outdated >> version of an outdated editor? There was a time when CodeWrite was a >> top-range programmer's editor, and worth paying for - but these days >> there is a wide range of free editors, many with far more features than >> CodeWrite ever had (and others that are lighter and faster - not >> everyone wants a big and powerful editor). I can understand that >> someone who has been using CodeWrite for years would want to keep using >> it, but I cannot see why anyone would want it now. >> >> I have a manual for CodeWrite 5 on my shelf, from 1997. It sits beside >> some LANtastic for DOS guides, right next to an 8" floppy disk. >> > > Choice of editor is personal, and not really something people > have to defend.That's certainly true - but I got the impression that this poster was looking for CodeWright as a new editor, as he first wants a demo or evaluation copy. That makes it a very strange choice.> > CodeWright's BRIEF emulation mode is better than the others.That would make sense for someone who has worked with BRIEF for years and has all the shortcuts burned into muscle memory.> > Espilon appears to be interesting & cross-platform. >I don't know that one at all - but as I said, there is a huge range of possible choices for editors. I have not used more than a small fraction of them.
Reply by ●October 2, 20152015-10-02
> Choice of editor is personal, and not really something people > have to defend.You betcha. I'm using CW 4.0e, last copyright date 1996. I've been using it since 1994 from the Win95 days. I can make it sing. I've tried other editors over the years and I hate 'em all. I have a custom DLL that I use to enhance capability according to my work habits. Works great on 32 bit Win7. Starts up in a blink. JJS
Reply by ●October 3, 20152015-10-03
Am 02.10.2015 um 03:37 schrieb Nick:> I need this OLD version (v5.1) because i need to reprogram some OLD > building > management panels and i have support and manuals only for this version of > codewright.I'm afraid you're going about this _entirely_ the wrong way.> As i am not an experimented developer i will have to follow instruction > from > this manual to with this version.No. Because you're clearly not at all experienced with this kind of work, you will have to _stop_ trying to do it yourself. You're well on your way to turning yourself into the equivalent of a 5-year-old asking his neighbors for a fork and a knife, which he claims to need to pry open an electrical wall outlet to make it go faster.> If i will get another compiler, i will be probably COMPLETELY LOST. I am > anyway scared about this Codewright 5.1 :)Unfortunately I'm quite certain you will be not one bit less lost even with a valid copy of CW 5.1 and all its documentation at hand. Because having no CW 5.1 is not your actual problem. It's but one tiny, practically irrelevant aspect of it.> The problem is i have no space for mistakes because this system that i > have to reprogram, is functional, in a bulding and if i make something wrong, > system will not work any more.And those are precisely the reasons why you should _not_ try to do this yourself. I might go as far as to advise that _nobody_ should change anything in this running system. Making chances to an old beast like that should never be done on the live installation. Without a test rig, modifications to such an old beast are virtually guaranteed to fail. Badly. And while at it, brace yourself (and the bosses) for the possible outcome that this system is found so out-of-date that it can no longer usefully be maintained. This horse may be dead enough that you should stop riding it.
Reply by ●October 4, 20152015-10-04
On 2015-10-03, Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> wrote:> > And those are precisely the reasons why you should _not_ try to do this > yourself. I might go as far as to advise that _nobody_ should change > anything in this running system. Making chances to an old beast like > that should never be done on the live installation. Without a test rig, > modifications to such an old beast are virtually guaranteed to fail. Badly. > > And while at it, brace yourself (and the bosses) for the possible > outcome that this system is found so out-of-date that it can no longer > usefully be maintained. This horse may be dead enough that you should > stop riding it.One thing I have not seen anyone ask yet: If this is a critical production environment, then where are the archived copies of the versions of the software and documentation used to create it ? Was the configuration of the original development environment archived as well ? If the original designers didn't archive the original environment, then how does the OP know that his instructions fully cover recreating the original environment from scratch ? To the OP: this sounds negative, but it's designed to make you think and stop you from making a _really_ big mistake. BTW, also to the OP, what happens when this hardware fails ? There's a strong argument to be made that you are effectively in that situation at the moment as it clearly doesn't meet current requirements and you don't appear to be able to change the setup so that it does. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
Reply by ●October 4, 20152015-10-04
Am 04.10.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Simon Clubley:> One thing I have not seen anyone ask yet: If this is a critical > production environment, then where are the archived copies of the > versions of the software and documentation used to create it ?Odds are it's these archived documents that Nick is trying to work his way through, but getting nowhere. It's what 20 years of technological change will do: even if the documentation was (barely) sufficient back then, large parts of it may no longer be comprehensible to a new reader today.> Was the configuration of the original development environment archived > as well ?Having the configuration would not necessarily help. Back then, one would have had to archive the actual development machine (and pray that it still boots if you turn it on today).
