Re: X server won't start in win95a

[Raymond Kwong <kwong at control dot toronto dot edu>]

Suhaib:

It was sheer curiosity that I caused me to keep trying with win95.
Win95 is old and shows it. Redhat 4.2 is probably considered ancient,
but it is much more recent than win95! I have installed win98 on my
other "non-working" machine and now the X server comes up right away.
>From this experience, it seems to me that with a new install, xfree86
works fine. However, if "software upgrades" are done to the system, then
all bets are off.

Raymond
   
On 25 Jun, Suhaib Siddiqi wrote:
> 
> Raymond,
> Well I still think it is winsock or networking issue.  However,
> concentrating efforts for Windows 95 won't pay off.  As a part of Sun
> Microsystems law suite settlements Microsoft does not distributes Windows 95
> any more, it removed Windows 95 from MSDN download site and new shipments of
> MSDN do not include Windows 95. Therefore I think Windows 95 will be flushed
> out of market in near future.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raymond Kwong [mailto:kwong@control.toronto.edu]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 1:05 PM
>> To: Suhaib Siddiqi; huntharo@msu.edu
>> Cc: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
>> Subject: Re: X server won't start in win95a
>> 
>> OK, finally I am getting some information which I hope will help. I
>> uninstalled
>> winsock2, using the batch file in the ws2bakup directory (the winsock
>> backup
>> directory). I ran startx after that. This is the message I got:
>> 
>> _X11TransSocketOpen: socket() failed for local
>> _X11TransSocketOpenCOTSClient: Unable to open socket for local
>> _X11TransOpen: transport open failed for
>> local/bragi.control.utoronto.ca:0
>> 
>> This message repeats until I hit CTRL-C. With that, the message repeat
>> one
>> more time, and the following is appended at the end:
>> 
>> ../usr/X11R6/bin/xinit: Addresses in the specified family cannot be
>> used with
>> this socket (errno 106): unexpected signal 2.
>> 
>> Let me know what I should try next. I hope it would be something less
>> than
>> reinstalling networking!
>> 
>> Raymond
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:54:22AM -0400, Suhaib Siddiqi wrote:
>> >
>> > > The only thing I have noticed so far between the working and the
>> > > non-working win95 systems is that the non-working one has winsock
>> > > upgraded, to version 2 I believe. Don't know if this is relevant,
>> just
>> > > another tidbit for you to consider.
>> > >
>> > > Thank you, Suhaib and Harold, for all your efforts. Although I
>> have 2
>> > > non-working installations, I have 4 working ones, 1 win95a, 1
>> win98, 2
>> > > w2k. I must say they look good.
>> > >
>> > > I am going to wipe out win95 on one of the non-working machines
>> and
>> > > install win98, and then cygwin and X. We'll see what happens. I
>> still
>> > > have the other non-working machine to try out your new
>> suggestions,
>> > > including possibly reinstalling networking, if that is felt to be
>> the
>> > > most likely cause.
>> >
>> >
>> > Winsock2 can be problem here.  When winsock2 was released as an
>> optional
>> > package for Windows95, I remember installing then replacing it with
>> Winsock
>> > which shipped with Win95.  Because it
>> > was giving problems on Windows95.
>> >
>> > If you uninstall Networking from Control Panel and reinstall it
>> using your
>> > Windows95, Winsock2 will be replaced with Winsock from Win95 CD.  It
>> might
>> > help.  Let us know.
>> >
>> > Suhaib
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Raymond
>> > >