"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:40541909$0$2791$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...> Windows 95 and 98 let you control the serial and parallel ports without > hassle. Many programs that do physical I/O won't run on NT derivatives.The serial ports are completely accessible at register level in NT and 2000. For the parallel port are numerous drivers available that, once installed, allow any program to access the parallel port at register level. Meindert
ANN: new Pulsonix version 3 PCB software released
Started by ●March 12, 2004
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Jerry Avins wrote:> Meindert Sprang wrote: > >> "Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in >> message news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de... >> >>> And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me >>> after >> >> this). >> >> What is it with those guys that stick religiously to Windows 98? It >> is, along with ME, one of the crappiest versions of windows. I have >> run on 95 for years which was challenging some times, but it worked. >> Then I switched to NT4, which was a big improvement After NT4 I went >> to 2000, which was about the best thing (apart from using Linux) I >> have ever done, rock solid, stable and fast. On two other machines I >> sometimes use, is 98 and ME. And it always strikes me how unstable >> and sloooow these machines are compared to windows 2000. The memory >> management of 98 and ME is so bad that working with large files >> results in many swapping actions which slow the computer down >> tremendously. The same operations on an 2000 machine with a slower >> processor and the same amount of memory perform much faster. And >> then I haven't mentioned the times 98 and ME crash, for no apparent >> reason. Sticking to 98 and ME is the worst thing you can do. Do >> yourself a favour and take that time to start fresh with 2000. >> You'll love it. >> >> Meindert > > Windows 95 and 98 let you control the serial and parallel ports > without hassle. Many programs that do physical I/O won't run on NT > derivatives.You just cant win can you:-) There is a sound reason for this. Does one want a bullet-proof OS that can control everything, i.e. it doesn't let anyone fuck with it, i.e. crash it, or do you want unlimited access that bypasses all protections? Its all swings and roundabouts. You can't have everything. The Windows OS isn't targeted at controlling hardware, its a consumer OS, i.e. for 1,000 million lay users. In general, I agree with the principle that all I/O in Windows is a *File*. It keeps things neat and tidy by being consistent. Kevin Aylward salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. "quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Kevin Aylward posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article <oMU4c.28$MV6.22@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:32:13 - 0000:> Why?:-)Because you're a fan of Windows XP. :D> I will note that I have not yet "upgraded" my MS VC++ to the latest with > .net. This is because it wants to eliminated support for 95/ME etc. Too > many are still using the older systems for me to restrict SS in that way > just yet. .net, is of course, just another attempt for MS to flog, > essentially, useless new product.Good. I think I could try running SS under Linux with WINE. []s! -- Chaos Master� - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa marreka.no-ip.com (ainda n�o pronto) LRU #327480
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article <40541acc$0$14414$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:41:50 - 0000:> I installed XP a few days ago after using 98 and ME for several years and > have been pleasantly surprised. It's much faster than ME, hasn't crashed > since I installed all the updates (it was very flaky at first) and runs all > the software I use without any problems.Windows ME is well known to be shit (because of some idiotic thing called System Restore). The best MS OS'es IMHO are 2000 and 98. Or we should just stop using anything related to Windows and go using Linux? (No WINE usage is allowed - you are using Windows dll's which is considered cheating. Use only native software :) -- Chaos Master� - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa marreka.no-ip.com (ainda n�o pronto) LRU #327480
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Meindert Sprang wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:40541909$0$2791$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > >>Windows 95 and 98 let you control the serial and parallel ports without >>hassle. Many programs that do physical I/O won't run on NT derivatives. > > > The serial ports are completely accessible at register level in NT and 2000. > For the parallel port are numerous drivers available that, once installed, > allow any program to access the parallel port at register level. > > MeindertOnly if you do it right according to NT calls. It's not only a barrier to migration, but the extra time is distressing in a 66 MHz machine. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Kevin Aylward wrote:> Jerry Avins wrote:...>>Windows 95 and 98 let you control the serial and parallel ports >>without hassle. Many programs that do physical I/O won't run on NT >>derivatives. > > > You just cant win can you:-) > > There is a sound reason for this. Does one want a bullet-proof OS that > can control everything, i.e. it doesn't let anyone fuck with it, i.e. > crash it, or do you want unlimited access that bypasses all protections?... It's not about winning and losing, it's about running legacy programs. One doesn't judge overall value by making certain problems explicit. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:405473dd$0$2845$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...> Meindert Sprang wrote: > > The serial ports are completely accessible at register level in NT and2000.> > For the parallel port are numerous drivers available that, onceinstalled,> > allow any program to access the parallel port at register level. > > > > Meindert > > Only if you do it right according to NT calls. It's not only a barrier > to migration, but the extra time is distressing in a 66 MHz machine.That is simply not true. I have written several DOS applications in the past that access serial ports at register level, i.e. direct access to the serial chip. These application still run fine in Windows NT and 2000. Only direct access to the printer port is blocked. Meindert
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Chaos Master wrote:> Kevin Aylward posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article > <oMU4c.28$MV6.22@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 > 08:32:13 - 0000: > >> Why?:-) > > Because you're a fan of Windows XP. :DIts a Hobson's choice. XP is the best Windows OS, so thats what I use.> >> I will note that I have not yet "upgraded" my MS VC++ to the latest >> with .net. This is because it wants to eliminated support for 95/ME >> etc. Too many are still using the older systems for me to restrict >> SS in that way just yet. .net, is of course, just another attempt >> for MS to flog, essentially, useless new product. > > Good. I think I could try running SS under Linux with WINE.I haven't personally run it under wine, but I have ran it quit a bit under that Meta software emulator (cant remember the exact name) on suns running Unix. Kevin Aylward salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. "quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Chaos Master wrote:> Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article > <40541acc$0$14414$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 > 08:41:50 - 0000: > > >> I installed XP a few days ago after using 98 and ME for several >> years and have been pleasantly surprised. It's much faster than ME, >> hasn't crashed since I installed all the updates (it was very flaky >> at first) and runs all the software I use without any problems. > > Windows ME is well known to be shit (because of some idiotic thing > called System Restore). The best MS OS'es IMHO are 2000 and 98.This is simply not true. 98 is crap. Have you actually read my other posts? What part of 98 is limited to *64k* for its GUI headers did you not understand? The GUI leaks. What part of writing to a:\ drive in 98 locks everything else out did you not understand? This one fact tells you what underlies 98. Think about what these facts actually imply. 98 *can't* be stable because it continuously gobbles up memory and always grinds to a halt. Its that simple. Go and actually try it. Its simply not debatable. Its a no contest. XP is at least an order of magnitude more stable than 98 and below. Practise and theory demonstrate this conclusively. Kevin Aylward salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. "quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Meindert Sprang wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:405473dd$0$2845$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >>Meindert Sprang wrote: >> >>>The serial ports are completely accessible at register level in NT and > > 2000. > >>>For the parallel port are numerous drivers available that, once > > installed, > >>>allow any program to access the parallel port at register level. >>> >>>Meindert >> >>Only if you do it right according to NT calls. It's not only a barrier >>to migration, but the extra time is distressing in a 66 MHz machine. > > > That is simply not true. I have written several DOS applications in the past > that access serial ports at register level, i.e. direct access to the serial > chip. These application still run fine in Windows NT and 2000. Only direct > access to the printer port is blocked. > > MeindertYou are the first correspondent who makes that claim. I'm sure you're right, and I want to learn from you. If I were to add a printer port at a non-standard address, would I be able to access that too? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
