Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Help with Eznec on WinXP
I'm trying to get Eznec ver 2 to run on a WinXP machine, but I keep getting
an Error 137, insufficent memory. Does anyone have a suggestion on what I need to set, or fix? Any help would be appreciated. Please post to the news group, as this address doesn't have a mailbox associated with it to avoid spam. Robert N3LGC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SignalFerret wrote:
I'm trying to get Eznec ver 2 to run on a WinXP machine, but I keep getting an Error 137, insufficent memory. Does anyone have a suggestion on what I need to set, or fix? I vaguely remember the firewall/virus-protection needs to be disabled during installation. I'm sure Roy will respond. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I could be wrong, and Roy will correct me if I am, but EZNEC seems to be
written in Visual Basic, or similar... might you need the run-time libraries for an older edition? And, he (Roy) mentions "double percision"--a nasty reality of basic (and some Fortran compilers also), which seems to confirm my suspicions... Regards, John "SignalFerret" wrote in message news:JoW9e.26259$jd6.8685@trnddc07... I'm trying to get Eznec ver 2 to run on a WinXP machine, but I keep getting an Error 137, insufficent memory. Does anyone have a suggestion on what I need to set, or fix? Any help would be appreciated. Please post to the news group, as this address doesn't have a mailbox associated with it to avoid spam. Robert N3LGC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
precision even!!! before all the spelling freaks fall on me!
John "John Smith" wrote in message ... I could be wrong, and Roy will correct me if I am, but EZNEC seems to be written in Visual Basic, or similar... might you need the run-time libraries for an older edition? And, he (Roy) mentions "double percision"--a nasty reality of basic (and some Fortran compilers also), which seems to confirm my suspicions... Regards, John "SignalFerret" wrote in message news:JoW9e.26259$jd6.8685@trnddc07... I'm trying to get Eznec ver 2 to run on a WinXP machine, but I keep getting an Error 137, insufficent memory. Does anyone have a suggestion on what I need to set, or fix? Any help would be appreciated. Please post to the news group, as this address doesn't have a mailbox associated with it to avoid spam. Robert N3LGC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
John Smith wrote:
I could be wrong, and Roy will correct me if I am, but EZNEC seems to be written in Visual Basic, or similar... might you need the run-time libraries for an older edition? No, that's not the problem -- it's due to DOS not being able to properly determine the size of a large amount of RAM. And the DOS versions were written with the MS BASIC Professional Development System, not Visual Basic. Windows versions of EZNEC (v. 3.0 and 4.0) are written in Visual Basic, except the calculating engines and a few speed-critical main program routines which are written in Fortran. And, he (Roy) mentions "double percision"--a nasty reality of basic (and some Fortran compilers also), which seems to confirm my suspicions... Double precision isn't a "nasty reality" -- it's simply a way of storing floating point variables. Normal precision floating point variables are stored in four byte words, and consequently have a resolution of about seven significant decimal digits. Double precision variables require 8 bytes and have about 15 significant digits of resolution. Fortran additionally has a complex data type which requires twice as much storage space, since each variable of that type has two parts. Some compilers have additional, higher precisions available. The program author can choose which data type to use for each individual variable. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, you are correct. In "C"/C++ conversion is automatic (or generates a
compiler error prompting you to "cast" to another type) if there is the slightest chance you will unintentionally lose precision... If I go to VB or Fortran I tend to get a lot of math errors (which are not caught by the compiler, but in real world use!) until I remember to compensate and control my code better... double precision is used by "C"/C++ (the "double"(integer) and "float"(floating point) variables) also (you are right, it is related to the size, in bytes(bits), of the math variable(s) in question), no problem--it is just more transparent in C. And, you are correct again, "precision" is only a matter of where you wish to "quit", and "double-double-precsion" and greater are able to be done, either as a function of the compiler, hard code a routine directy in assembly language yourself, or the programmer can institute them in the high level code... Visual Basic, Fortan, COBOL (yuck!), Pascal, "C", etc, etc are usually only a matter of syntax, style, speed and preference... "C" is just my personal preference... Years ago it was common for Basic/VB to constantly have issues with math variables (actually, changes to the functions in the OS) in each new release of windows, I live in the past... frown Warmest regards, John "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: I could be wrong, and Roy will correct me if I am, but EZNEC seems to be written in Visual Basic, or similar... might you need the run-time libraries for an older edition? No, that's not the problem -- it's due to DOS not being able to properly determine the size of a large amount of RAM. And the DOS versions were written with the MS BASIC Professional Development System, not Visual Basic. Windows versions of EZNEC (v. 3.0 and 4.0) are written in Visual Basic, except the calculating engines and a few speed-critical main program routines which are written in Fortran. And, he (Roy) mentions "double percision"--a nasty reality of basic (and some Fortran compilers also), which seems to confirm my suspicions... Double precision isn't a "nasty reality" -- it's simply a way of storing floating point variables. Normal precision floating point variables are stored in four byte words, and consequently have a resolution of about seven significant decimal digits. Double precision variables require 8 bytes and have about 15 significant digits of resolution. Fortran additionally has a complex data type which requires twice as much storage space, since each variable of that type has two parts. Some compilers have additional, higher precisions available. The program author can choose which data type to use for each individual variable. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The C "float" type is equivalent to the VB Single and Fortran Real
variable types, which are single precision (4 bytes) -- I forget what they call the double precision real variable in C. Integers are another matter -- all have the same precision, and the only difference between different sizes is the size of number they can contain. It's hard to believe a compiler can tell when you'll lose precision, since it depends on many factors in the course of the calculation including the order of calculation, as well as the actual variable values. I don't know what kind of "math errors" you got when you tried to use some other language, but it's not because the numerical precision is any less with one language than another. Careless programming in any language can cause errors and loss of accuracy. I'm not aware of any problem with Basic or VB with regard to variable precision or other issues with variables. I've programmed in HP, DEC, GW, Quick, and other flavors of Basic since the mid '60s, and VB since v. 4. Every language has its strong and weak points, but for many years now mathematical calculation quality has been determined by the hardware, not the language. I suppose the language could have made a difference before the days of the coprocessor. However, my first commercial program, ELNEC, was introduced in early 1990 in coprocessor and non-coprocessor versions, and I never saw a significant difference in results between the two -- and it did some extremely intensive floating point calcualations. So if there was some problem, it must have occured before that. As a side note, I once fell for the alleged superiority of C with regard to speed compared to Basic, and reprogrammed the calculation portion of ELNEC with Quick C. The result was that the compiler generated about 30% more code than with the Basic PDS I was using, and it ran about 30% slower. Some genuine C gurus where I was working looked over the code and couldn't find anything I'd done which would cause it to run slower than optimum. So there are good and poor compilers in all languages. This has strayed way off topic, and the OP has contacted me directly, so I'll exit this thread now. Roy Lewallen, W7EL John Smith wrote: Yes, you are correct. In "C"/C++ conversion is automatic (or generates a compiler error prompting you to "cast" to another type) if there is the slightest chance you will unintentionally lose precision... If I go to VB or Fortran I tend to get a lot of math errors (which are not caught by the compiler, but in real world use!) until I remember to compensate and control my code better... double precision is used by "C"/C++ (the "double"(integer) and "float"(floating point) variables) also (you are right, it is related to the size, in bytes(bits), of the math variable(s) in question), no problem--it is just more transparent in C. And, you are correct again, "precision" is only a matter of where you wish to "quit", and "double-double-precsion" and greater are able to be done, either as a function of the compiler, hard code a routine directy in assembly language yourself, or the programmer can institute them in the high level code... Visual Basic, Fortan, COBOL (yuck!), Pascal, "C", etc, etc are usually only a matter of syntax, style, speed and preference... "C" is just my personal preference... Years ago it was common for Basic/VB to constantly have issues with math variables (actually, changes to the functions in the OS) in each new release of windows, I live in the past... frown |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Lewallen wrote:
-- I forget what they call the double precision real variable in C. double -j |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Back in the dark ages, when I was in school, we were "encouraged" to take a
numerical analysis course if we were interested in computers. (I was an EE major.) It was not an easy topic, but it made us well aware of the difference between correct results and computational precision. I was recently astonished to find that most computer science students have no concept of this area and even less interest in it. These current thoughts extend to other areas: - C is more accurate than Fortran (or Basic, or what whatever) - Obtaining "stable" numeric results means you get the same answer if you run the program twice - C produces the fastest programs - if C is good then C++ is better - Using all the obscure C operators produces a better program (Anyone remember the IBM 7030 system? The user could control the rounding direction of the floating point LSB. In this case running a program twice (with different rounding options) really was relevant.) Bill W2WO |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"SignalFerret" wrote in message news:JoW9e.26259$jd6.8685@trnddc07... I'm trying to get Eznec ver 2 to run on a WinXP machine, but I keep getting an Error 137, insufficent memory. Does anyone have a suggestion on what I need to set, or fix? Any help would be appreciated. Please post to the news group, as this address doesn't have a mailbox associated with it to avoid spam. Robert N3LGC Is that a DOS program? I recall upgrading to a Windows version, and think it was 3.x. Tam |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
JvComm32 and other digisoft on WinXP | General | |||
Mismatch Uncertainty and an EZNEC transmission line sudy | Antenna | |||
EZNEC v. 4.0 at Dayton | Antenna | |||
3 antennas modeled with EZNEC | Antenna | |||
Eznec modeling loading coils? | Antenna |