quote: The ONLY thing I get is a box that says: 1628: quote: I cannot uninstall ANY mastercam component now. And I can't re-install the software at all?!? I've ran into this same exact problem on many computers. I got it to work by: [*]make sure Windows Installer 3.1 is installed (you can get it from Windows Update/Microsoft Update) [*]delete anything not modified today in C:Documents and Settings[your_user_name]Local SettingsTemp [*]uninstall HASP drivers [*]delete the Mcamx directory (back up any posts and whatnot first) [*]delete HKLMSoftwareCNC Software, Inc.Mastercam X [*]delete HKCUSoftwareCNC Software, Inc.Mastercam X [*]delete Registry entries containing "{47A8ED18-BABE-42F7-A387-7F8D48F4EC03}" [*]delete Registry entries containing "{84B6C15E-6604-4A5B-93BA-E862E806783D}" [*]delete C:Program FilesInstallShield Installation Information{47A8ED18-BABE-42F7-A387-7F8D48F4EC03} [*]reboot [*]reinstall X and hope the problem doesn't happen again when you apply the updates If you go that route, be careful! There are a lot of things to be done in the Registry and incorrectly deleting or modifying anything in there can render your computer unbootable. quote: It is becoming clear that it's an installer problem and not an mcam issue. What could have possibly happened to my installer software. Oh yeah, it's a microsoft product. I don't know if it's a Windows Installer problem or not. I'd chalk it up to the InstallShield installer, if I had to wager anything.

Jon, You can use the UBB CODE tags, which are basically just HTML PRE tags, to take care of that: code: /* should be added automatically if using the Mastercam C-Hook or standard MFC DLL project wizards */ #include <stdafx.h>

quote: d. I find it unlikely that this particular patch made it out for testing. There was no beta for Update 2 made available to testers and resellers. Just thought I should mention that.

quote: :oZ to US translator ON: :jaffas: is the Oz version of :popcorn: :oz to US translator OFF: Geez, I sleep for 7 hours and look what I miss. Bruce, that was the best part of this thread so far. At least I learned something Play nice folks. Don't let your software frustrations get personal.

quote: While it works, have you ever seen any software direct you to do this kind of stuff? It's all part of the hoops that we have to jump through that I think is BS. I think you'll agree. Yes, I agree. But I also know that while creating software can be fun and rewarding, it's a pain. It's a never-leveling learning curve, too. Have you ever had a built-in updater in Mastercam before X came along? Well CNC Software hadn't developed (or at the very least "released") a built-in updater before X came along. What's new to us is also new to them. Jsut don't ever under estimate the level of support this forum provides to handle situations like this quote: Isn't this how all Windows programs are written...resourse files, etc (so we've been told here at the forum)? Not necessarily. But for large apps, like Mastercam, it's a good idea. And that's what they did on a bigger scale with X. quote: Then what's the problem with linking the registry info to Help-About? EVERYONE else it doing it, why can't MC? I can't answer that.

quote: Then, how do I check it? I have to run a chook which is still unclear...listing my version number as one thing and then a list of other files that have been updated with another version number. What is so goddamn difficult about letting me know what version I'm running? On every other Windows program on the planet, Help-About will say "V3.127.472" What's the problem, CNC Software? That was the main reason that I wrote that script in the first place back when Update 1 was released. the data exists in the Registry...it just needs to be hooked up to the Help | About dialog. However, X is not the same as previous versions. There isn't a big Mill EXE or Lathe EXE and so on anymore. It's one smaller Mastercam EXE with other "components" in DLL form. Those DLLs, which can contain a small feature set or an entire product can have different versions. They can update one of those DLLs and not need to create a bunch of CDs all over again...just a small update is all that's needed. So realistically, all executable code, whether in EXE or DLL form, can go through many iterations (read: versions). As such, that's the reason for all the different version numbers. But I do agree that there should be one "Build" number (note the wording in my VBScript). A build is a release...the sum of all parts. And a single version number by way of a build number would be handy in these cases. And yes, there's the maintenance vs non-maintenance issue that can complicate things. Perhaps build numbers could be calculated through some magic math to arrive at a sub build number or something in the source control software/post-build options to assign according build numbers. For example...the build obviously starts with 10. The next could be for a major revision number...say X1. Then the next two are dependant on main vs non-main and revision. So.. 10 = X 0 = major revision 14 = maint/non-main specific 30 = maint/non-main specific Then have that disaplyed on the Help | About screen. The versions of the individual EXEs and DLLs in that list box is a good idea, so that doesn't need to change. I'm just thinking out loud here and realizing that this is new territory for all of us.

quote: Instead, I sit around waiting until I think it's done. If an SP or update install isn't installed through the Update Manager, I fire up a Task Manager window, switch to the Processes tab and keep an eye on msiexec.exe. When that's gone, it's probably safe to assume that the install is done.

What's the error that the compiler/linker gives you?

So did you create an MFC DLL?

Did you use C-Hook wizard? I use CStrings as often as I can with no problems. Character arrays and pointers are so passe, am I right?

Would you need to link to MCMachineDef.lib and/or MCPost.lib?

quote: ...and using the scrip shows 10.0.14.30 10.0.14.30 is X SP1 Update 2, AFAIK. Good to go

Awesome, Jon! Thx

Prior to X, the other three variables that you could use were nc_filename, nc_filename, and mpost_filename. And of course, you could override those with your own paths. But in X, I have no idea where it is. CD/MD has changed how it all works. Searching the CHM of the X SDK documentation for something like "NC filename" yields a few different possibilities. Maybe somebody from CNC Software can give some insight?

quote: 1. I am trying to run a post processor from a nethook and it seems like the routine I need to use is run_post_exe_dll(), but the documentation is a bit vague as to what arguments I need to give it. I have retrieved what seems to be the post processor name using PostProcFileStr() but I need to know what to put in the other 3 arguments. With versions prior to X, it was pretty straight-forward. run_post_exe_dll() took four parameters; post EXE filename, NCI filename, PST filename and NC filename. But in the X SDK documentation, you're right. It's not helpful at all. So maybe it's the same as it was in previous versions (assuming that the new CD/MD stuff doesn't change things)? But indeed, as you've found out, if you're not familiar with the previous SDKs, the documentation makes absolutely no sense. Take what you will from "string passing in parameter #1 to the post", "string passing in parameter #2 to the post" and "string passing in parameter #3 to the post"

Yup. 10.0.14.21 is X SP1 Update 1. Had it been 10.0.14.19, then you would only have X SP1. You're good to go

I've finally amended the FTP Instructions to include a section on using IE6 with the FTP site

In IE, go Tools | Internet Options. Click on the Advanced tab. Scroll down and look for "Use Passive FTP" and uncheck it.

quote: I got SP1 to install but still can't say for sure if the first update to the SP1 worked. I don't think that installer is up to snuff. Answer.

I've also run into that problem on a few of our computers. The fix that I found is brutal and really shouldn't be attempted if you're not a Windows power user. Hopefully MR1 clears this up.

I've seen optical mice get a case of the "jumps" on wood surfaces and red ones, too. Try a dark solid colour if you want to rule out the mouse.

quote: I do experience a little cursor jump sometimes, where the pointer will all of sudden be on the other side of the screen. Got an optical mouse on a non-solid-coloured mousepad or a red mouse pad?

Kewl Keep it up

In my experience, the USB-to-serial converters are terrible. I've had more success with the Quatech PCMCIA serial cards.

*BUMP* I would also like to know about this.