Run time error 13 - Axe Software Forums

  Axe Software Forums
  Quest Developer Forum
  Run time error 13

Author Topic:   Run time error 13

TiLT posted 31-12-2001 03:23 GMT
I just downloaded Quest 3.1 beta after toying around with 3.03 for a while. The client itself seems to run fine, but when I try to open the QDK game editor, I get this error message before the program even loads:
"Run time error '13' Type mismatch"
I'm running WinXP, and have tried uninstalling Quest before reinstalling the beta too. It still won't work. What's wrong?
carlii posted 31-12-2001 08:54 GMT
omg! HAHAHAHAHA
I got that exact same error! But I don't think it's the same error...I was actually running (through Quest, with QDK editor still open) an .asl file whereas in your case the 'bug' engages itself "before the program even loads". Alex, I think you need to look into this...
Alex posted 31-12-2001 18:50 GMT
Does the error occur the second you start QDK.EXE? I'll take a look into it...
Computer Whizz posted 01-01-2001 04:49 GMT
TiLT - do you have backward compatibility correctly set?
As I understand it this can cause many problems! Go to the folder with QDK & Quest in it, right click and search for a compatibility setting where you can choose different Windows versions.... Pick W98!
Does that fix it?
You probably should revert to Win9x/ME anyway cos the newer one's are just plain crazy....
Computer Whizz
Alex posted 01-01-2001 18:19 GMT
I develop Quest under Windows 2000 so that should work fine, if you feel the need to set the backward compatibility option in XP. I don't think you should need to though - Quest doesn't try to do anything too funky. A friend of mine has run Quest successfully under XP.
TiLT posted 02-01-2001 12:06 GMT
The problem appears the second I start the program. No windows appear, except for the error window. As I mentioned Quest 3.03 ran perfectly for me, without a single crash ever.
After seeing your replies, I've tried running the program in both Win98 and Win2000-compability modes, with no luck. It just refuses to work for some reason.
And just for the record, WinXP is the best OS available for the average user. :)
carlii posted 05-01-2001 08:02 GMT
Ahh, not for me, I tried to install WinXP and when I did it kept on Restarting the computer everytime I ran it!
Computer Whizz posted 05-01-2001 13:40 GMT
Plus the fact that after a certain number of upgrades (fitting newer pieces of hardware into your system) you have to re-register with Microsoft, meaning not only do you spend cash on the OS - but on the hardware, the registration, and every registration after THAT!
I find that totally disturbing that they want you to keep on forking out money over and over again just because you put better hardware into YOUR machine! Plus the fact that it crashes while using some software meant for earlier versions...... pssshhhh, best Windows ever my *ss!
Computer Whizz
TiLT posted 05-01-2001 17:56 GMT
Bah! :) You'll have problems if you do an upgrade from an earlier version of Windows, that I can agree on. The reregistration after each hardware upgrade is a non-issue, which anyone would discover if they took their time to read up on the FACTS! :P Only for major hardware upgrades (like putting in a new graphics card, soundcard and motherboard at once) will it ask for a new registration, and you still have a couple of times you can upgrade freely. This results in trouble only for people who upgrade their motherboard as often as they change underwear.
Don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as any of you, but unfair judgement is just plain wrong.
Computer Whizz posted 05-01-2001 22:54 GMT
No. I have heard NUMEROUS accounts of NUMEROUS programs not working in XP simply because it is not 100% compatible!
The upgrading is of a certain number (from what I've heard) where you upgrade a certain number of times. What if you just came into some money and decided to get a new graphics and sound card and add in a couple of other cards (TV, DVD, ect...)?? You'd have to re-register and fork out even MORE money. This is not a good point AT ALL even if it does only happen in large quantity!
I don't specifically hate MS - Windows is very "user-friendly", their products have nice front ends (apart from Media player 7.0 onwards) and I use many of them.
The only point I have is that they are stupid enough to do this, as well as leaving large holes in their OS & software, giving access to the OS using activeX (or something like that - can't remember the name), and other such stupid things.
If you want to have a look at a nice representation of "Windows XP" go in search of "Windows RG" (really good edition).
:) If you still can't find it I'll send it to you - it's really nice!!
Computer Whizz
TiLT posted 05-01-2001 23:56 GMT
Anyway... :)
To get this back on track, I'm still wondering why Quest 3.1 won't work on my computer.
MaDbRiT posted 07-01-2001 10:38 GMT

quote:

The reregistration after each hardware upgrade is a non-issue, which anyone would discover if they took their time to read up on the FACTS! :P Only for major hardware upgrades (like putting in a new graphics card, soundcard and motherboard at once) will it ask for a new registration, and you still have a couple of times you can upgrade freely. This results in trouble only for people who upgrade their motherboard as often as they change underwear.
O.K. - how about people like me who are obliged to keep their machines up to latest spec because I have to support anything in use in anywhere in the organisation?? My machine is updated hardware wise every month or two and I doubt I'm unique in that.
I don't call XP' big-brother tactics registration policy a non-issue, I call it "sharp practice". Frankly I think MS are just taking advantage of thier monopoly position once again to milk the consumer.
Microsoft's O-S upgrades are always a complete pain in the rear, the compatability of XP is (at present) woefully inadequate (more than 50% of our older apps don't run at all or crash the PC completely no matter what compatibilty settings we try - XP is the worst Windows release EVER in that respect).
I suppose we'll have to learn to live with XP, there's no realistic alternative, but if you aren't starting from scratch with a new PC and new 'made for XP apps' - XP is the stuff of your worst nightmares.
I'm not looking to start a flame war or pro/anti Microsoft argument here. This is just how this particular IT Systems Manager feels, others might love XP... if they don't have legacy software issues.
Al

Author	Topic: Run time error 13
TiLT	posted 31-12-2001 03:23 GMT I just downloaded Quest 3.1 beta after toying around with 3.03 for a while. The client itself seems to run fine, but when I try to open the QDK game editor, I get this error message before the program even loads: "Run time error '13' Type mismatch" I'm running WinXP, and have tried uninstalling Quest before reinstalling the beta too. It still won't work. What's wrong?
carlii	posted 31-12-2001 08:54 GMT omg! HAHAHAHAHA I got that exact same error! But I don't think it's the same error...I was actually running (through Quest, with QDK editor still open) an .asl file whereas in your case the 'bug' engages itself "before the program even loads". Alex, I think you need to look into this...
Alex	posted 31-12-2001 18:50 GMT Does the error occur the second you start QDK.EXE? I'll take a look into it...
Computer Whizz	posted 01-01-2001 04:49 GMT TiLT - do you have backward compatibility correctly set? As I understand it this can cause many problems! Go to the folder with QDK & Quest in it, right click and search for a compatibility setting where you can choose different Windows versions.... Pick W98! Does that fix it? You probably should revert to Win9x/ME anyway cos the newer one's are just plain crazy.... Computer Whizz
Alex	posted 01-01-2001 18:19 GMT I develop Quest under Windows 2000 so that should work fine, if you feel the need to set the backward compatibility option in XP. I don't think you should need to though - Quest doesn't try to do anything too funky. A friend of mine has run Quest successfully under XP.
TiLT	posted 02-01-2001 12:06 GMT The problem appears the second I start the program. No windows appear, except for the error window. As I mentioned Quest 3.03 ran perfectly for me, without a single crash ever. After seeing your replies, I've tried running the program in both Win98 and Win2000-compability modes, with no luck. It just refuses to work for some reason. And just for the record, WinXP is the best OS available for the average user. :)
carlii	posted 05-01-2001 08:02 GMT Ahh, not for me, I tried to install WinXP and when I did it kept on Restarting the computer everytime I ran it!
Computer Whizz	posted 05-01-2001 13:40 GMT Plus the fact that after a certain number of upgrades (fitting newer pieces of hardware into your system) you have to re-register with Microsoft, meaning not only do you spend cash on the OS - but on the hardware, the registration, and every registration after THAT! I find that totally disturbing that they want you to keep on forking out money over and over again just because you put better hardware into YOUR machine! Plus the fact that it crashes while using some software meant for earlier versions...... pssshhhh, best Windows ever my *ss! Computer Whizz
TiLT	posted 05-01-2001 17:56 GMT Bah! :) You'll have problems if you do an upgrade from an earlier version of Windows, that I can agree on. The reregistration after each hardware upgrade is a non-issue, which anyone would discover if they took their time to read up on the FACTS! :P Only for major hardware upgrades (like putting in a new graphics card, soundcard and motherboard at once) will it ask for a new registration, and you still have a couple of times you can upgrade freely. This results in trouble only for people who upgrade their motherboard as often as they change underwear. Don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as any of you, but unfair judgement is just plain wrong.
Computer Whizz	posted 05-01-2001 22:54 GMT No. I have heard NUMEROUS accounts of NUMEROUS programs not working in XP simply because it is not 100% compatible! The upgrading is of a certain number (from what I've heard) where you upgrade a certain number of times. What if you just came into some money and decided to get a new graphics and sound card and add in a couple of other cards (TV, DVD, ect...)?? You'd have to re-register and fork out even MORE money. This is not a good point AT ALL even if it does only happen in large quantity! I don't specifically hate MS - Windows is very "user-friendly", their products have nice front ends (apart from Media player 7.0 onwards) and I use many of them. The only point I have is that they are stupid enough to do this, as well as leaving large holes in their OS & software, giving access to the OS using activeX (or something like that - can't remember the name), and other such stupid things. If you want to have a look at a nice representation of "Windows XP" go in search of "Windows RG" (really good edition). :) If you still can't find it I'll send it to you - it's really nice!! Computer Whizz
TiLT	posted 05-01-2001 23:56 GMT Anyway... :) To get this back on track, I'm still wondering why Quest 3.1 won't work on my computer.
MaDbRiT	posted 07-01-2001 10:38 GMT quote: The reregistration after each hardware upgrade is a non-issue, which anyone would discover if they took their time to read up on the FACTS! :P Only for major hardware upgrades (like putting in a new graphics card, soundcard and motherboard at once) will it ask for a new registration, and you still have a couple of times you can upgrade freely. This results in trouble only for people who upgrade their motherboard as often as they change underwear. O.K. - how about people like me who are obliged to keep their machines up to latest spec because I have to support anything in use in anywhere in the organisation?? My machine is updated hardware wise every month or two and I doubt I'm unique in that. I don't call XP' big-brother tactics registration policy a non-issue, I call it "sharp practice". Frankly I think MS are just taking advantage of thier monopoly position once again to milk the consumer. Microsoft's O-S upgrades are always a complete pain in the rear, the compatability of XP is (at present) woefully inadequate (more than 50% of our older apps don't run at all or crash the PC completely no matter what compatibilty settings we try - XP is the worst Windows release EVER in that respect). I suppose we'll have to learn to live with XP, there's no realistic alternative, but if you aren't starting from scratch with a new PC and new 'made for XP apps' - XP is the stuff of your worst nightmares. I'm not looking to start a flame war or pro/anti Microsoft argument here. This is just how this particular IT Systems Manager feels, others might love XP... if they don't have legacy software issues. Al