Is this XQuartz v. 126.96.36.199 or 188.8.131.52? I noticed that there is at
least no 184.108.40.206 on their website - only 220.127.116.11.
On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Wayne Boucher wrote:
> Dan says that some X11 implementations are better than others (or at
> least, so it seems). Dan is currently using XQuartz version 18.104.22.168
> and that seems ok (but he probably doesn't use Analysis as much as
> you). Having said that, he just tried 22.214.171.124 today and got some
> horrid glX errors, so he went back to 126.96.36.199.
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Patrick van der Wel wrote:
>> So there is nothing I can do about it? It happened to me twice,
>> On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Wayne Boucher wrote:
>>> OSX (esp. 10.5) and X11 do not seem to get on with each other very
>>> well. Dan says this happens to him now and again but not very
>>> reproducibly (I'm on 10.4, which seems to be better, or perhaps
>>> it's just that I don't use Analysis enough).
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Patrick van der Wel wrote:
>>>> I just had Analysis crash with the following error message:
>>>> X Error of failed request: BadIDChoice (invalid resource ID
>>>> chosen for this connection)
>>>> Major opcode of failed request: 149 (RENDER)
>>>> Minor opcode of failed request: 4 (RenderCreatePicture)
>>>> Resource id in failed request: 0x1ebdfb7
>>>> Serial number of failed request: 28610593
>>>> Current serial number in output stream: 28610678
>>>> I had noticed that the program's response had been getting ever
>>>> slower, but otherwise there was nothing unusual going on. Any
>>>> This is Analysis v2.07 running on the Mac OSX 10.5.7.