ANN: new Pulsonix version 3 PCB software released

I think it is all in which release you are using:

'98 is very unstable, and crashes alot. '98SE  is still unstable,
and still crashes alot, but not as bad as '98.

And the best of the lot is '98SE SR2.

Linux running wine is what I do when I have to run an application that
only runs under microslop.

-Chuck Harris

OBTW,  The word is that Microslop has passed $100M through other
companies (like money laundering) so that these companies could pass it
on to SCO to aid in SCO's law suits, FUD and other attempts to destroy
linux, and linux users.

Check out www.groklaw.com for more information.


Chaos Master wrote:
> Kevin Aylward posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article 
> <kK%4c.134$MV6.39@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:27:52 -
> 0000:
> 
>  
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> LOL. If it is crap, it's not my problem. I don't use the a: drive anymore (just 
> under MS-DOS and Linux) so I don't have 'this problem.
> 
> My Win 98 never crashes, unless I do something that is known to make it crash. 
> (call me lucky).
> 
> Duh.
> 

Boris Mohar wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:21:52 -0200, Chaos Master
> 
... snip ...
> >
> > My Win 98 never crashes, unless I do something that is known to
> > make it crash. (call me lucky).
> 
>  My 98 starts to misbehave almost every time when I empty the
> trash.  Any clues?

Just say no and don't do that.  I never have Explorer of any
variety showing its face.  I use such utilities as dir, del, ls,
rm in text windows.  I also don't let command.com show out - it is
replaced by 4dos.  I religiously reboot every one or two weeks, or
whenever some other application crashes (which is rare, due to
selection of applications, see Explorer comment above).

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

On a sunny day (Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:12:35 GMT) it happened CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in <40548DCA.28B35064@yahoo.com>:

>Which is quite enough to foul up software.  I had an extremely low
>cost application some years ago, whos primary function was to read
>a miniature cassette tape recorded in the equivalent of MFM with
>peculiar blocking.  The interface was a single 25 cent CMOS chip,
>largely to set proper disconnected defaults.  The functions
>included forward/reverse fast/slow (and off) motor control, head
>loading, and reading BOT/EOT markers and the raw MFM.  We didn't
>mind tieing up the PC for the read period, so all was done in
>software - including clock/data separation.  This involved some
>calibration against CPU clock speed and unfettered raw access to
>the printer port.
In a multitasking system you cannot use software timing in any case, because
the timing loop may be interrupted by the task switch.
(Not even counting normal interrupts).
The exception is i2c protocol, it does not care a lot if you wait a while
before the next bit.
On serial better is to use a micro (cheap 2 $ PIC has serial port).
Par port is more complicated, but simple 4 bit read / 8 bit write
bidirectional with a micro is possible (else ECP etc).
These soft loop systems worked fine on MS DOS / DR DOS though, even had
a CB packet terminal program on a serial port in DOS.

As to upgrade to > win 98, I use dual boot Linux  / win98, with as default
Linux, why sell yourself out to Bill Gates?
They sort of want control over you, your programs, the sites you visit, and
of cause your purse.
Not a day goes by without a new MS Windows virus warning, I have been with
Linux from SLS kernel 0.98 or so... and NEVER had ANYTHING that did any harm
how many years - let's see, just grabbed the old SLS disk 4
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root       181475 Aug  3  1993 shadow.tgz -
So, that is almost 11 years, and NO attacks have succeeded in that time.
Recently I have been doing some deeper study of ipchains, the Linux packet
filtering, as I will be online 24/7 since ADSL is coming here this month
(hopefully).
Very cool stuff, you have complete control over all traffic, with just a few
simple commands, easily scriptable.
No bloat, no constant 'security patches' needed, just simple to the point
good old programming.
Linux rocks, MS sucks.
JP

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40548DCA.28B35064@yahoo.com...
> Meindert Sprang wrote:
> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Which is quite enough to foul up software.  I had an extremely low
> cost application some years ago, whos primary function was to read
> a miniature cassette tape recorded in the equivalent of MFM with
> peculiar blocking.  The interface was a single 25 cent CMOS chip,
> largely to set proper disconnected defaults.  The functions
> included forward/reverse fast/slow (and off) motor control, head
> loading, and reading BOT/EOT markers and the raw MFM.  We didn't
> mind tieing up the PC for the read period, so all was done in
> software - including clock/data separation.  This involved some
> calibration against CPU clock speed and unfettered raw access to
> the printer port.
>
> In addition, why do you want to contribute to the MS oligarchy?

Ironically, quality, IMHO. If Linux is such a wonderful platform, why do
'still' use Windows 98 to access USENET? Perhaps it's those inexplicable KDE
lockups? Or do you use Gnome and find it lacks just enough features that it
makes you want to gag compared to what is available in the embarrassingly
unstable, yet feature rich KDE?

> Go and read their current EULAs with care and mounting horror.
>

Quality costs, it *should* cost less since we all paid to help Microsoft get
where it is today. In a way, the public at large is the owner of Windows.
Microsoft should lower its costs and Linux would disappear like a fond
dream. Fond? Yes, I've used it on and off for 9 years and have hoped it
would get to the point that I could use it full time. I don't see that
happening.

Chuck Harris posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article 
<405531ae$0$2825$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:31:41 -0500:

> The only time I use Windoze is to run a few legacy packages
> that are too messed up to run under wine.  All I have to do
> to make Win98 SE SR2 crash is leave my laptop on over night.
> The next morning, it will have no free memory, and won't even
> be able to shut down correctly.  This is caused by Explorer.

Don't use Explorer; use Litestep or BB4WIN (BlackBox for Windows) as your main 
shell.

-- 
Chaos Master&#4294967295; - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda n&#4294967295;o pronto)
LRU #327480

Hi Dilton,

If you are having linux lock up on you all the time, you have
faulty hardware.  Linux is very intolerant of bad memory.
It uses memory so rigorously that any flaws will wreck things.
Most of the newer PC's don't have any memory error detecting or
correcting capability so errors go unnoticed until they
kill something.

I have been running linux exclusively for about 10 years now,
and it is stable as a rock.  The only time I reboot is when I
make a hardware change, or upgrade my kernel to the latest and
greatest.  I have gone more than 6 months without powering my
system down, or rebooting.

Gnome did glitch abit back when it first came out, but it is
very stable now.  It is far far FAR better than MS's GUI.

The only time I use Windoze is to run a few legacy packages
that are too messed up to run under wine.  All I have to do
to make Win98 SE SR2 crash is leave my laptop on over night.
The next morning, it will have no free memory, and won't even
be able to shut down correctly.  This is caused by Explorer.

-Chuck Harris

OBTW, I own way too much MS stock to be talking like this.
Keep using windoze, pay for my retirement!

Dilton McGowan II wrote:

>>
>>In addition, why do you want to contribute to the MS oligarchy?
> 
> 
> Ironically, quality, IMHO. If Linux is such a wonderful platform, why do
> 'still' use Windows 98 to access USENET? Perhaps it's those inexplicable KDE
> lockups? Or do you use Gnome and find it lacks just enough features that it
> makes you want to gag compared to what is available in the embarrassingly
> unstable, yet feature rich KDE?
> 
> 
>>Go and read their current EULAs with care and mounting horror.
>>
> 
> 
> Quality costs, it *should* cost less since we all paid to help Microsoft get
> where it is today. In a way, the public at large is the owner of Windows.
> Microsoft should lower its costs and Linux would disappear like a fond
> dream. Fond? Yes, I've used it on and off for 9 years and have hoped it
> would get to the point that I could use it full time. I don't see that
> happening.
> 
> 

"Meindert Sprang" <mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> wrote in message
news:4054b166@news.nb.nu...
> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:405490ea$0$2798$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> > Meindert Sprang wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > You 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?
>

Let me be the second to make that claim (actually, I'm not the second, as a
search on comp.arch.embedded history will reveal - we've been through this
discussion several times before).

> No. Printer ports are not accessible at register level. But on the
internet,
> several drivers/services are available that, once installed, allow
programs
> to access specific or simply all hardware ports. The ones for printer
ports
> are most famous because of the many ulitities that program
microcontrollers
> etc. through an interface that is connected to a printer port.
>

If you are interested, the most common driver used is "giveio".  If this
driver is installed on an NT machine (including W2K and XP), then a program
can simply open a file handle to this driver, and thereafter it has full
access to the hardware on the PC.  Converting a program that accesses the
parallel port into one that runs safely and quickly on NT involves nothing
more than adding this access (a couple of lines of code) and putting the
giveio driver (freely available) into its install program.  This is used by
most programmers and debuggers that use the parallel port.

For programs that don't have this support, there is another less safe
solution.  Install the "totalio" driver (also freely available).  When you
start it, *all* programs get full hardware access.  It's therefore not the
safest of solutions, and you should set the driver to manual startup (so
that you use "net start totalio" and "net stop totalio" afterwards), but it
will let any Win9x, or even Win16 or DOS program access the parallel port
directly on NT.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:54:42 GMT, Paul Russell wrote:
> Leon Heller wrote:
> 
>> I've been helping to beta test version 3 of Pulsonix for the last few
>> months. It has now been released and is available for download from:
>> 
>> http://www.pulsonix.com.
>> 
>> Without a license it's a full working demo (up to 100 pins for schematic
>> entry and PCB design) and Pulsonix will provide a 30 day license for a
>> fuller evaluation on request.
>> 
> 
> When advertising commercial software it's a good idea to state which 
> platform(s) and/or operating system(s) it is available for. While this 
> product is no doubt excellent, it appears to be be available only for 
> Windows.

Which is a downside.  As soon as someone brings out a design package
for Linux that is at least as good as P-CAD (which I have a lot of issues
with, but nevertheless ...) I'll be first in the queue to buy it.  Well,
it would have to be available for both Linux and Windows, I guess.  Not
much to ask is it?

-- 
Trevor Barton

Hi,

It is easier and more reliable for me to just not use Windoze
at all.  The only time I need it is to run my income tax programs,
so that doesn't happen all that often.  Everything else I use
Linux.

Linux runs just fine for all my wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
presentation programs, math analyzers, PCB layout tools, Spice
simulations, gerber viewers, web browsers, email, CD players and
burners, DVD players, document scanners, printers, networking, midi
composers and players, web authoring, web hosting, the list is
endless... AND ALL OF IT IS FREE!

-Chuck Harris

Chaos Master wrote:
> Chuck Harris posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article 
> <405531ae$0$2825$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:31:41 -0500:
> 
> 
>>The only time I use Windoze is to run a few legacy packages
>>that are too messed up to run under wine.  All I have to do
>>to make Win98 SE SR2 crash is leave my laptop on over night.
>>The next morning, it will have no free memory, and won't even
>>be able to shut down correctly.  This is caused by Explorer.
> 
> 
> Don't use Explorer; use Litestep or BB4WIN (BlackBox for Windows) as your main 
> shell.
> 

David Brown wrote:

   ...

> If you are interested, the most common driver used is "giveio".  If this
> driver is installed on an NT machine (including W2K and XP), then a program
> can simply open a file handle to this driver, and thereafter it has full
> access to the hardware on the PC.  Converting a program that accesses the
> parallel port into one that runs safely and quickly on NT involves nothing
> more than adding this access (a couple of lines of code) and putting the
> giveio driver (freely available) into its install program.  This is used by
> most programmers and debuggers that use the parallel port.
> 
> For programs that don't have this support, there is another less safe
> solution.  Install the "totalio" driver (also freely available).  When you
> start it, *all* programs get full hardware access.  It's therefore not the
> safest of solutions, and you should set the driver to manual startup (so
> that you use "net start totalio" and "net stop totalio" afterwards), but it
> will let any Win9x, or even Win16 or DOS program access the parallel port
> directly on NT.

Thank you. Knowing makes all the difference! On my way to highschool one
morning (bus, past the newsstand to the subway), I read the about the
astounding invention of point-contact transistors. The NY Times article
included a technical discussion and an illustration. I read it several
times. When I got home, I made one. It was oscillating before supper.
Knowing makes all the difference.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������