Joerg wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> Joerg wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> OTOH look at what a regular business user does: Run some apps, 
>>> connect to a corporate files server, print on some hallway printer, 
>>> email, Internet. I can do all of that with XP Pro and with XP home.
>>>
>>
>> I suppose that's true.  It may just be what I'm used to - my 
>> experience with XP Home is pretty limited, but it felt like some 
>> things were missing.  At the office (and at home), we went from WfW 
>> 3.11 to NT4.0 (after a brief but pleasant interlude with OS/2 3.0), 
>> then W2k (we still have W2k machines in daily use), then XP Pro.  We 
>> avoided the Win9x line almost entirely, so XP Pro was the logical 
>> progression from W2k.
>>
> 
> I am using XP SP2 Home Edition on this PC which I bought from the Dell 
> business group. Works fine, haven't hit any roadblocks. Including remote 
> networking into client's servers which works just fine.
> 

I was thinking of the other way - remote networking into *your* desktop. 
  I often work from my PC at home, and occasionally I need direct access 
to my office workstation - VNC is *very* convenient.  I believe it is 
against the XP Home EULA to run programs like VNC server (the client is 
fine).  Not that I am overly concerned about such ridiculous clauses in 
EULAs, but if you are trying to run a business network and use remote 
access to client desktops as part of a "help desk" setup, it might be a 
problem.

larwe wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:59 am, Chuck Cox <chuckP...@synchro.com> wrote:
> 
>> One of our clients uses VMWare to encapsulate and archive their
>> embedded development environments and we have just started exploring
>> using it ourselves for future projects.  Have you found any gotchas?
>> I'm particularly concerned about problems with license managers and
>> hardware debuggers.
> 
> Which is precisely where you'll hit the problems. Unfortunately the
> bottom line is that even with "perfect" emulation software you'll be
> subject to the whims and vagaries of the underlying OS and the real
> hardware on which you're running it.
> 
> I have found several h/w debuggers that don't run at all inside
> emulation (USB-based, mostly).
> 

I've only tried hardware access using Virtual Box - access to a USB 
dongle, a USB debugger, and a USB flash memory device (a good guinea pig 
for testing) worked perfectly, with XP and Kubuntu hosts.

I haven't tried using the parallel port with Virtual Box - according to 
the developers (now at Sun), theoretically it might work, but there are 
no guarantees.

David Brown wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
> 
>>
>> The topper was a Word file I got from a client recently. About a dozen 
>> pages. 15 megabytes!
>>
> 
> The most common cause for such big word files is pictures.  .doc format 
> doesn't seem to be able to store pictures in jpg - it uses a sort of 
> mangled raw bitmap that can't be well compressed by external programs 
> (such as zip).


Not really. Nearly all my reports and module specs contain half a dozen 
pictures or more. Scope plots, photos, schematics, layout sections, the 
works. The files size rarely gets above 1.5MB and most of them are north 
of 25 pages. I format any tech drawings in PNG, then import them. Images 
in JPEG. Keeps things rather tiny.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Lanarcam wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> Lanarcam wrote:
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't know. I stored my copy back as PDF which got it down to around 
>>>> 10MB. Still a lot, but less. Now I can't edit it anymore but I am 
>>>> not supposed to anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> How can I reverse anything on the *.doc file to make it smaller?
>>>
>>> Can you save it as *.rtf then as *.doc again?
>>
>>
>> Tried it. That destroyed most of the layout. Tables overflowed and 
>> wrapped, graphics completely vanished, no more legible page numbers ...
>>
> As a last resort, try *.html then *.doc.
> No guarantee, of course!


Tried it. Lost lots of detail in the pics and was then not restoreable 
to Word-97 compatible format (which is a requirement with most of my 
clients).

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

David Brown wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH look at what a regular business user does: Run some apps, 
>>>> connect to a corporate files server, print on some hallway printer, 
>>>> email, Internet. I can do all of that with XP Pro and with XP home.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose that's true.  It may just be what I'm used to - my 
>>> experience with XP Home is pretty limited, but it felt like some 
>>> things were missing.  At the office (and at home), we went from WfW 
>>> 3.11 to NT4.0 (after a brief but pleasant interlude with OS/2 3.0), 
>>> then W2k (we still have W2k machines in daily use), then XP Pro.  We 
>>> avoided the Win9x line almost entirely, so XP Pro was the logical 
>>> progression from W2k.
>>>
>>
>> I am using XP SP2 Home Edition on this PC which I bought from the Dell 
>> business group. Works fine, haven't hit any roadblocks. Including 
>> remote networking into client's servers which works just fine.
>>
> 
> I was thinking of the other way - remote networking into *your* desktop. 
>  I often work from my PC at home, and occasionally I need direct access 
> to my office workstation - VNC is *very* convenient.  I believe it is 
> against the XP Home EULA to run programs like VNC server (the client is 
> fine).  Not that I am overly concerned about such ridiculous clauses in 
> EULAs, but if you are trying to run a business network and use remote 
> access to client desktops as part of a "help desk" setup, it might be a 
> problem.
> 

That would be a real liability risk for me. I could tap into my file 
server but I have also disabled that feature. With clients who are a bit 
on the antique side WRT computing I usually provide a large FTP range on 
my web site, with password and all. Good enough ;-)

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Joerg wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> Everett M. Greene wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>> Microsoft has even extended their reach for wasting resources
>>>> to the Internet by making it difficult to do email in a simple
>>>> text form.  You now get email with embedded HTML so that the
>>>> messages are at least 4 times larger than necessary.  There
>>>> goes the Internet bandwidth.
>>>
>>> The topper was a Word file I got from a client recently. About
>>> a dozen pages. 15 megabytes!
>>
>> At that size I daresay it included some editing, and you could
>> reverse that at will.  If so, I can think of ways to discourage
>> them from such practices.
> 
> Don't know. I stored my copy back as PDF which got it down to
> around 10MB. Still a lot, but less. Now I can't edit it anymore
> but I am not supposed to anyhow.
> 
> How can I reverse anything on the *.doc file to make it smaller?

I believe you can do the reversal, but it won't make it smaller! 
However, IF IRC there is an option somewhere that allows you to
discard the retained previous states when saving.  Using it makes
saving a longer process - whee.  I virtually never use word (I
stick to text files to all purposes) so I don't really know.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
            Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Joerg wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH look at what a regular business user does: Run some apps, 
>>>>> connect to a corporate files server, print on some hallway printer, 
>>>>> email, Internet. I can do all of that with XP Pro and with XP home.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that's true.  It may just be what I'm used to - my 
>>>> experience with XP Home is pretty limited, but it felt like some 
>>>> things were missing.  At the office (and at home), we went from WfW 
>>>> 3.11 to NT4.0 (after a brief but pleasant interlude with OS/2 3.0), 
>>>> then W2k (we still have W2k machines in daily use), then XP Pro.  We 
>>>> avoided the Win9x line almost entirely, so XP Pro was the logical 
>>>> progression from W2k.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am using XP SP2 Home Edition on this PC which I bought from the 
>>> Dell business group. Works fine, haven't hit any roadblocks. 
>>> Including remote networking into client's servers which works just fine.
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking of the other way - remote networking into *your* 
>> desktop.  I often work from my PC at home, and occasionally I need 
>> direct access to my office workstation - VNC is *very* convenient.  I 
>> believe it is against the XP Home EULA to run programs like VNC server 
>> (the client is fine).  Not that I am overly concerned about such 
>> ridiculous clauses in EULAs, but if you are trying to run a business 
>> network and use remote access to client desktops as part of a "help 
>> desk" setup, it might be a problem.
>>
> 
> That would be a real liability risk for me. I could tap into my file 
> server but I have also disabled that feature. With clients who are a bit 
> on the antique side WRT computing I usually provide a large FTP range on 
> my web site, with password and all. Good enough ;-)
> 

Obviously you make sure your security is appropriate (vpn, non-standard 
ports, tying to specific IP addresses).  Also remember one of the big 
security risks - even if the connection from your home PC to the office 
machines is tight, and your home LAN is secure from the Internet, is 
your home PC safe from your teenage kids and their downloaded malware?

In comp.arch.embedded,
David Brown <d...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
>
> I haven't tried using the parallel port with Virtual Box - according to 
> the developers (now at Sun), theoretically it might work, but there are 
> no guarantees.

I am currently running an old version of Ultiboard under VMware with W98
guest OS because that version of Ultiboard will not run on XP. This
version uses a hardware key on the parallel port and that works fine.

We did try the XP VM first, but it crashed irrepairably after trying to
run fullscreen with Ultiboard repeatedly and on different systems.

-- 
Stef    (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

David Brown wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH look at what a regular business user does: Run some apps, 
>>>>>> connect to a corporate files server, print on some hallway 
>>>>>> printer, email, Internet. I can do all of that with XP Pro and 
>>>>>> with XP home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose that's true.  It may just be what I'm used to - my 
>>>>> experience with XP Home is pretty limited, but it felt like some 
>>>>> things were missing.  At the office (and at home), we went from WfW 
>>>>> 3.11 to NT4.0 (after a brief but pleasant interlude with OS/2 3.0), 
>>>>> then W2k (we still have W2k machines in daily use), then XP Pro.  
>>>>> We avoided the Win9x line almost entirely, so XP Pro was the 
>>>>> logical progression from W2k.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am using XP SP2 Home Edition on this PC which I bought from the 
>>>> Dell business group. Works fine, haven't hit any roadblocks. 
>>>> Including remote networking into client's servers which works just 
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking of the other way - remote networking into *your* 
>>> desktop.  I often work from my PC at home, and occasionally I need 
>>> direct access to my office workstation - VNC is *very* convenient.  I 
>>> believe it is against the XP Home EULA to run programs like VNC 
>>> server (the client is fine).  Not that I am overly concerned about 
>>> such ridiculous clauses in EULAs, but if you are trying to run a 
>>> business network and use remote access to client desktops as part of 
>>> a "help desk" setup, it might be a problem.
>>>
>>
>> That would be a real liability risk for me. I could tap into my file 
>> server but I have also disabled that feature. With clients who are a 
>> bit on the antique side WRT computing I usually provide a large FTP 
>> range on my web site, with password and all. Good enough ;-)
>>
> 
> Obviously you make sure your security is appropriate (vpn, non-standard 
> ports, tying to specific IP addresses).  Also remember one of the big 
> security risks - even if the connection from your home PC to the office 
> machines is tight, and your home LAN is secure from the Internet, is 
> your home PC safe from your teenage kids and their downloaded malware?


No kids here, although we've tried. Then if someone wants to try the 
ultimate hack (sledgehammer, front door) there would be one last "Oh 
s..t!" experience waiting to happen: A Rottweiler and a Shepherd.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

On Jun 23, 4:06=A0pm, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

> > I have found several h/w debuggers that don't run at all inside
> > emulation (USB-based, mostly).
>
> I've only tried hardware access using Virtual Box - access to a USB
> dongle, a USB debugger, and a USB flash memory device (a good guinea pig
> for testing) worked perfectly, with XP and Kubuntu hosts.

In my experience, devices that enumerate as a standard COM or LPT
device seem to work okay (probably because they really are just a USB-
to-RS232 or USB-to-Centronics shim bolted onto an existing emulator
design).

Devices that use totally proprietary drivers - I'm looking at you,
Texas Instruments and Xilinx - don't seem to work. The Xilinx tool
that came with the ML403 kinda worked, very unreliably and slowly. The
MSP430 stuff either just doesn't work (when virtualized under Windows)
or crashes the host OS hard with a kernel panic (MacOS). Doesn't seem
to matter whose emulation software is being used either.