David Brown wrote:
> .....
>
> 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.

Then you have yet another reason to stay away from vista.
I recently discovered that the RFB spec was publically available
and of course immediately wrote a VNC server for DPS; on
the way (while browsing over tightvnc IIRC) I discovered they
still have no server running under vista because the OS won't
allow them to access the framebuffer - and they don't see that
happen any time soon as it does not look easy to overcome.

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/b31ad1345ba9c7cd?dmode=source

CBFalconer wrote:
> 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.
> 

Discard previous states? That would be great to know because it'll get 
rid of meta-data. AFAIK only a brand new version of Word can do that via 
some helper routine. OpenOffice can't do it either as far as I know.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

Didi wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> .....
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Then you have yet another reason to stay away from vista.
> I recently discovered that the RFB spec was publically available
> and of course immediately wrote a VNC server for DPS; on
> the way (while browsing over tightvnc IIRC) I discovered they
> still have no server running under vista because the OS won't
> allow them to access the framebuffer - and they don't see that
> happen any time soon as it does not look easy to overcome.
> 

The tightvnc faq (at least, the part I read) says it is a conflict with 
Vista's "security" features.  I wonder if it makes a difference if you 
use the Mirage drivers (as I do on other windows - it reduces the load 
on the server machine).

mvh.,

David

larwe wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:06 pm, 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.

Virtual Box and VMWare differ greatly in the way they handle these 
devices.  VMWare lets the guest access the host's USB devices - but only 
if the *host* has drivers for them.  Virtual Box will pass it straight 
through to the guest - the host drivers are not involved.  When running 
some development software on a XP guest on a Linux host, the software 
had no problem accessing the dongle without any support on the Linux 
side (I don't know if there *are* Linux drivers for that dongle).

I don't know about the state of parallel port access from Virtual Box.

If you are having trouble with VMWare, or haven't got any virtualisation 
software from before, give Virtual Box a try.  It's free (there's an 
open source version which is "speech" free, and a closed source version 
which is "beer" free for almost all uses), and works well.  It doesn't 
have the same sophisticated management tools as VMWare, but you don't 
need that on a desktop.

On Jun 24, 3:24=A0am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
> larwe wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 4:06 pm, 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 p=
ig
> >> 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.
>
> Virtual Box and VMWare differ greatly in the way they handle these
> devices. =A0VMWare lets the guest access the host's USB devices - but onl=
y
> if the *host* has drivers for them. =A0Virtual Box will pass it straight

I've tried VMWare and Parallels and Virtual PC. I'm not sure if what
you just said there is completely true, btw. I have devices that are
totally custom and have no native drivers, and both VMWare and
Parallels virtualize the _USB controller_ so that the driver in the
emulated VM can talk to the device attached to the host.

I don't see any way that these emulators could virtualize abstracted
access to a device that doesn't have a generic interface.

larwe wrote:
> On Jun 24, 3:24 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> larwe wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 4:06 pm, 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.
>> Virtual Box and VMWare differ greatly in the way they handle these
>> devices.  VMWare lets the guest access the host's USB devices - but only
>> if the *host* has drivers for them.  Virtual Box will pass it straight
> 
> I've tried VMWare and Parallels and Virtual PC. I'm not sure if what
> you just said there is completely true, btw. I have devices that are
> totally custom and have no native drivers, and both VMWare and
> Parallels virtualize the _USB controller_ so that the driver in the
> emulated VM can talk to the device attached to the host.
> 

My understanding of VMWare's USB must be either mistaken, out of date, 
or vary according to the product (I've only tried the server version, 
not the desktop version, although the desktop version would be more 
appropriate here).

I note your list of tested solutions is missing Virtual Box...

> I don't see any way that these emulators could virtualize abstracted
> access to a device that doesn't have a generic interface.

There are plenty of USB device classes that *do* have a generic 
interface.  Thus it is quite possible to virtualise mice, keyboards, 
flash disks, etc., without having full transparent USB support.  I don't 
know if any of the virtualisation solutions do that (since I clearly 
know a little less than I thought I did, at least about VMWare).

On 2008-06-23, Joerg <n...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>> 
>> 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?

There's an NSA paper on how to do this in various software packages.
Different aim entirely (secrecy) but the results are the same.  Do
a web search for "Redacting with Confidence".  Don't have a link
handy right now.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
a...@sdf.lonestar.org

On Jun 24, 5:07=A0am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:

> > Parallels virtualize the _USB controller_ so that the driver in the
> > emulated VM can talk to the device attached to the host.
>
> My understanding of VMWare's USB must be either mistaken, out of date,
> or vary according to the product (I've only tried the server version,

Well, I don't know - the effects I observe are consistent with the
controller being virtualized, put it that way (i.e. I can install
drivers in the guest operating system without the host OS seeing
anything but "unknown device attached").

> I note your list of tested solutions is missing Virtual Box...

You should also note that XP is installing inside Virtual Box in the
window behind this browser :) Thanks for the pointer, now let's see if
it works.

> There are plenty of USB device classes that *do* have a generic
> interface. =A0Thus it is quite possible to virtualise mice, keyboards,
> flash disks, etc., without having full transparent USB support. =A0I don'=
t

Sure. Anything for which a class driver exists should be
virtualizable. My point is that the custom devices - which is most of
my USB JTAG adapters, emulator pods, etc - do not have a class device
and it is not clear to me how they could be virtualized.

Joerg escribió:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
 >>>
>>> 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.
> 
> Discard previous states? That would be great to know because it'll get 
> rid of meta-data. AFAIK only a brand new version of Word can do that via 
> some helper routine. OpenOffice can't do it either as far as I know.

Try Tools -> Options -> Save. Uncheck "Allow to save quickly" (or 
something like that, I am translating from the Spanish 2002 version)

CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I virtually never use word (I stick to text files to all purposes)
> so I don't really know.

I don't use Word except under duress.  I'm mostly interested in
handling program source files and compiling them.  The results
are sent back to a non-PC primary machine for most of the rest
of the work.

A major thing I miss is a simple "print" command.  This has been
removed/disabled in the recent M$ offerings.  I find it a major
pain to have to fire up a word processor just to be able to
print a simple ASCII file.

Curiosity item:  Does anyone know what the internal API is
for the various flavors of Windows for printing?  Does the
API expect the text to be simple ASCII, Postscript, or what?