On Aug 19, 6:42 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote:> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:00 GMT, Joerg > > > > <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote: > >Ali wrote: > > >> On Aug 16, 11:25 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> > >> wrote: > > >>>Ali wrote: > > >>>>On Aug 16, 8:08 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> > >>>>wrote: > > >>>>>Dirk Zabel wrote: > > >>>>>>Joerg schrieb: > > >>>>>>>Joerg wrote: > > >>>>>>>>Ok, folks, Portmon shows COM6 which is the port to a scope, via a USB > >>>>>>>>connection. The terminal program (TeraTerm) is talking to it via that > >>>>>>>>port. Later it's going to be a VBA routine and that's why I need to > >>>>>>>>monitor, to see what gets stuck or doesn't appear. > > >>>>>>>>Long story short I can set Portmon to monitor all other COM ports but > >>>>>>>>not COM6. Says "Portmon cannot attach .... device may be in use". > >>>>>>>>Well, duh, if it weren't in use I wouldn't need to monitor it ;-) > > >>>>>>>>Is that normal? Any remedies? Use another port monitor software? Go > >>>>>>>>back to ye olde logic analyzer like I used to do it (it's heavy, > >>>>>>>>leads to backaches...)? > > >>>>>>>Ok, found out a somewhat kludgy fix: Close the terminal program, start > >>>>>>>Portmon, then re-open the terminal. If Portmon isn't open and set to > >>>>>>>the desired COM port before the terminal program then Portmon won't > >>>>>>>work, at least not here. Strange, but at least it works now. > > >>>>>>Hi Joerg, > >>>>>>in my experience that's normal behaviour with all programs which use the > >>>>>>com port. You have first to attach portmon to the port and than start > >>>>>>the program which generates the traffic I want to watch. > > >>>>>Ok, thanks, Dirk. I didn't know that. It probably would be a good thing > >>>>>to mention in the troubleshooting section but I couldn't see anything > >>>>>about it there. > > >>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like > >>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some > >>>>>hardware. That's why I need Portmon. > > >>>>>-- > >>>>>Regards, Joerg > > >>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com > > >>>>--snip-- > > >>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like > >>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some > >>>>>hardware. > > >>>>Yeah, VB is most favorable for developing quick GUIs. But you might > >>>>give a try to C# from .net 2005, there is built in support for com > >>>>port and quite easy as compare to VB. > > >>>Well, I am quite cured of this .NET stuff. The scope's software needed > >>>it and I had to downgrade from 2.0 because there seems to be a serious > >>>lack of backwards compatibility in .NET. The file names were kept the > >>>same (!). No, not my cup of tea ;-) > > >>>-- > >>>Regards, Joerg > > >>>http://www.analogconsultants.com > > >> Thats true, code written in .net 05 is not compatible with .net 05. > > BTW: Please clarify what .net 05 is? If you mean the framework shipped > with VS2005, then that would be .net 2.0 > > > > >That's similar to what I've seen. Talking about version control ... > > >As for me and my clients we'll rely on proven technology, where we know > >it works.Certainly I meant framework environment. Do you think that app developed in visual Studio 2003 can be recompiled with visual studio 2005? I had bad experience about that, yeah, I got a application from my workmate developed in 2005 where as my machine was having 2003. So, It didn't work for me. App was simple TCP/IP application with talking to com port. ali
Anyone used Portmon on a USB-RS232?
Started by ●August 15, 2007
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:26:34 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote:>On Aug 19, 6:42 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:00 GMT, Joerg >> >> >> >> <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >> >Ali wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 16, 11:25 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Ali wrote: >> >> >>>>On Aug 16, 8:08 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >> >>>>wrote: >> >> >>>>>Dirk Zabel wrote: >> >> >>>>>>Joerg schrieb: >> >> >>>>>>>Joerg wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>Ok, folks, Portmon shows COM6 which is the port to a scope, via a USB >> >>>>>>>>connection. The terminal program (TeraTerm) is talking to it via that >> >>>>>>>>port. Later it's going to be a VBA routine and that's why I need to >> >>>>>>>>monitor, to see what gets stuck or doesn't appear. >> >> >>>>>>>>Long story short I can set Portmon to monitor all other COM ports but >> >>>>>>>>not COM6. Says "Portmon cannot attach .... device may be in use". >> >>>>>>>>Well, duh, if it weren't in use I wouldn't need to monitor it ;-) >> >> >>>>>>>>Is that normal? Any remedies? Use another port monitor software? Go >> >>>>>>>>back to ye olde logic analyzer like I used to do it (it's heavy, >> >>>>>>>>leads to backaches...)? >> >> >>>>>>>Ok, found out a somewhat kludgy fix: Close the terminal program, start >> >>>>>>>Portmon, then re-open the terminal. If Portmon isn't open and set to >> >>>>>>>the desired COM port before the terminal program then Portmon won't >> >>>>>>>work, at least not here. Strange, but at least it works now. >> >> >>>>>>Hi Joerg, >> >>>>>>in my experience that's normal behaviour with all programs which use the >> >>>>>>com port. You have first to attach portmon to the port and than start >> >>>>>>the program which generates the traffic I want to watch. >> >> >>>>>Ok, thanks, Dirk. I didn't know that. It probably would be a good thing >> >>>>>to mention in the troubleshooting section but I couldn't see anything >> >>>>>about it there. >> >> >>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >> >>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >> >>>>>hardware. That's why I need Portmon. >> >> >>>>>-- >> >>>>>Regards, Joerg >> >> >>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >> >> >>>>--snip-- >> >> >>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >> >>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >> >>>>>hardware. >> >> >>>>Yeah, VB is most favorable for developing quick GUIs. But you might >> >>>>give a try to C# from .net 2005, there is built in support for com >> >>>>port and quite easy as compare to VB. >> >> >>>Well, I am quite cured of this .NET stuff. The scope's software needed >> >>>it and I had to downgrade from 2.0 because there seems to be a serious >> >>>lack of backwards compatibility in .NET. The file names were kept the >> >>>same (!). No, not my cup of tea ;-) >> >> >>>-- >> >>>Regards, Joerg >> >> >>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >> >> >> Thats true, code written in .net 05 is not compatible with .net 05. >> >> BTW: Please clarify what .net 05 is? If you mean the framework shipped >> with VS2005, then that would be .net 2.0 >> >> >> >> >That's similar to what I've seen. Talking about version control ... >> >> >As for me and my clients we'll rely on proven technology, where we know >> >it works. > >Certainly I meant framework environment. Do you think that app >developed in visual Studio 2003 can be recompiled with visual studio >2005? I had bad experience about that, yeah, I got a application from >my workmate developed in 2005 where as my machine was having 2003. So, >It didn't work for me.Yes, an app developed with 2003, can be compiled with 2005; and it can be compiled to target the framework that was deployed with 2003 (.net 1.1). As for an application developed in 2005, if you target it for .net 1.1 then you can compile it in 2003. Just be warned however that the .sln and .**proj files may not be compatible. Furthermore any automatically generated code, such as that for GUI apps may not port backwards to previous versions of visual studio either.>App was simple TCP/IP application with talking to com port.This does not matter. All versions of the framework can work side by side. If you write code that uses new classes in .net2.0, then of course it wont work in .net1.1. If you wtite it using the 1.1 classes, then it will work.> >ali
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
The Real Andy wrote:> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:00 GMT, Joerg > <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: > > >>Ali wrote: >> >> >>>On Aug 16, 11:25 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ali wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Aug 16, 8:08 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Dirk Zabel wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>Joerg schrieb: >>>> >>>>>>>>Joerg wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>Ok, folks, Portmon shows COM6 which is the port to a scope, via a USB >>>>>>>>>connection. The terminal program (TeraTerm) is talking to it via that >>>>>>>>>port. Later it's going to be a VBA routine and that's why I need to >>>>>>>>>monitor, to see what gets stuck or doesn't appear. >>>> >>>>>>>>>Long story short I can set Portmon to monitor all other COM ports but >>>>>>>>>not COM6. Says "Portmon cannot attach .... device may be in use". >>>>>>>>>Well, duh, if it weren't in use I wouldn't need to monitor it ;-) >>>> >>>>>>>>>Is that normal? Any remedies? Use another port monitor software? Go >>>>>>>>>back to ye olde logic analyzer like I used to do it (it's heavy, >>>>>>>>>leads to backaches...)? >>>> >>>>>>>>Ok, found out a somewhat kludgy fix: Close the terminal program, start >>>>>>>>Portmon, then re-open the terminal. If Portmon isn't open and set to >>>>>>>>the desired COM port before the terminal program then Portmon won't >>>>>>>>work, at least not here. Strange, but at least it works now. >>>> >>>>>>>Hi Joerg, >>>>>>>in my experience that's normal behaviour with all programs which use the >>>>>>>com port. You have first to attach portmon to the port and than start >>>>>>>the program which generates the traffic I want to watch. >>>> >>>>>>Ok, thanks, Dirk. I didn't know that. It probably would be a good thing >>>>>>to mention in the troubleshooting section but I couldn't see anything >>>>>>about it there. >>>> >>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>hardware. That's why I need Portmon. >>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>>> >>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>> >>>>>--snip-- >>>> >>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>hardware. >>>> >>>>>Yeah, VB is most favorable for developing quick GUIs. But you might >>>>>give a try to C# from .net 2005, there is built in support for com >>>>>port and quite easy as compare to VB. >>>> >>>>Well, I am quite cured of this .NET stuff. The scope's software needed >>>>it and I had to downgrade from 2.0 because there seems to be a serious >>>>lack of backwards compatibility in .NET. The file names were kept the >>>>same (!). No, not my cup of tea ;-) >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Regards, Joerg >>>> >>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>> >>> >>>Thats true, code written in .net 05 is not compatible with .net 05. >>> >> >>That's similar to what I've seen. Talking about version control ... >> >>As for me and my clients we'll rely on proven technology, where we know >>it works. > > > I find that very hard to beleive. I have on my PC .net1.0, 1.1, 2.0, > 3.0, 3.5 and they all work fine side by side. I have no problem with > backward compatability. Furthermore, I have just finished writing a > 1.1 app with VS2008. Works a treat.I found it hard to believe as well. Until I tried to load FreeWave, the software that came with the Instek GDS-2204 scope. Loaded .NET 2.0, got an error message about incompatibility. The manual recommended the older version so after some searching I found it, loaded it. Now it worked. That just doesn't happen with, for example, MS-Office. I make sure my files are '97 compatible and I never had a single complaint that someone couldn't read a file, even with heavily loaded "jumbo files". Except for a few folks who used OpenOffice but that's a different story. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
The Real Andy wrote:> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:26:34 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Aug 19, 6:42 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:00 GMT, Joerg >>> >>> >>> >>><notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Ali wrote: >>> >>>>>On Aug 16, 11:25 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>wrote: >>> >>>>>>Ali wrote: >>> >>>>>>>On Aug 16, 8:08 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>>>wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>Dirk Zabel wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>Joerg schrieb: >>> >>>>>>>>>>Joerg wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>Ok, folks, Portmon shows COM6 which is the port to a scope, via a USB >>>>>>>>>>>connection. The terminal program (TeraTerm) is talking to it via that >>>>>>>>>>>port. Later it's going to be a VBA routine and that's why I need to >>>>>>>>>>>monitor, to see what gets stuck or doesn't appear. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>Long story short I can set Portmon to monitor all other COM ports but >>>>>>>>>>>not COM6. Says "Portmon cannot attach .... device may be in use". >>>>>>>>>>>Well, duh, if it weren't in use I wouldn't need to monitor it ;-) >>> >>>>>>>>>>>Is that normal? Any remedies? Use another port monitor software? Go >>>>>>>>>>>back to ye olde logic analyzer like I used to do it (it's heavy, >>>>>>>>>>>leads to backaches...)? >>> >>>>>>>>>>Ok, found out a somewhat kludgy fix: Close the terminal program, start >>>>>>>>>>Portmon, then re-open the terminal. If Portmon isn't open and set to >>>>>>>>>>the desired COM port before the terminal program then Portmon won't >>>>>>>>>>work, at least not here. Strange, but at least it works now. >>> >>>>>>>>>Hi Joerg, >>>>>>>>>in my experience that's normal behaviour with all programs which use the >>>>>>>>>com port. You have first to attach portmon to the port and than start >>>>>>>>>the program which generates the traffic I want to watch. >>> >>>>>>>>Ok, thanks, Dirk. I didn't know that. It probably would be a good thing >>>>>>>>to mention in the troubleshooting section but I couldn't see anything >>>>>>>>about it there. >>> >>>>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>>>hardware. That's why I need Portmon. >>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>> >>>>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>> >>>>>>>--snip-- >>> >>>>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>>>hardware. >>> >>>>>>>Yeah, VB is most favorable for developing quick GUIs. But you might >>>>>>>give a try to C# from .net 2005, there is built in support for com >>>>>>>port and quite easy as compare to VB. >>> >>>>>>Well, I am quite cured of this .NET stuff. The scope's software needed >>>>>>it and I had to downgrade from 2.0 because there seems to be a serious >>>>>>lack of backwards compatibility in .NET. The file names were kept the >>>>>>same (!). No, not my cup of tea ;-) >>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>> >>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>> >>>>>Thats true, code written in .net 05 is not compatible with .net 05. >>> >>>BTW: Please clarify what .net 05 is? If you mean the framework shipped >>>with VS2005, then that would be .net 2.0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>That's similar to what I've seen. Talking about version control ... >>> >>>>As for me and my clients we'll rely on proven technology, where we know >>>>it works. >> >>Certainly I meant framework environment. Do you think that app >>developed in visual Studio 2003 can be recompiled with visual studio >>2005? I had bad experience about that, yeah, I got a application from >>my workmate developed in 2005 where as my machine was having 2003. So, >>It didn't work for me. > > > Yes, an app developed with 2003, can be compiled with 2005; and it can > be compiled to target the framework that was deployed with 2003 (.net > 1.1). > > As for an application developed in 2005, if you target it for .net 1.1 > then you can compile it in 2003. Just be warned however that the .sln > and .**proj files may not be compatible. Furthermore any automatically > generated code, such as that for GUI apps may not port backwards to > previous versions of visual studio either. > > > >>App was simple TCP/IP application with talking to com port. > > > This does not matter. All versions of the framework can work side by > side. If you write code that uses new classes in .net2.0, then of > course it wont work in .net1.1. If you wtite it using the 1.1 classes, > then it will work. >For Instek's FreeWave it didn't. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
The Real Andy wrote:> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:33:33 -0700, Joerg > <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: > > >>The Real Andy wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:36:30 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Aug 16, 3:52 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:31:16 +0200, Leo Havm�ller >>>>> >>>>><rtx...@nospam.nospam> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>That sounds like a useful testing tool. Where does it come from? >>>>> >>>>>>It comes from Mark Russinovich >>>>>>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich). >>>>>>You can download PortMon and many other useful tools from: >>>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx >>>>> >>>>>>Leo Havm�ller. >>>>> >>>>>He wont go there, he hates MS. Mark and the other guy did a great job >>>>>with all the SysInternals tools. I have been using their tools for >>>>>years now. Hopefully they got enough cash from MS to retire on, cause >>>>>they deserve it! >>>> >>>>Maybe, Its good for windows users. I hope M$ will replace their creepy >>>>and * taskmanager with Mark's fine process explorer! >>> >>> >>>Most of those tools reside permantly on my USB drive, especially >>>process explorer. Really handy for nutting out those rouge processes >>>on your brother-in-laws' computer! >>> >>> >>> >>>>Job does make us a good pet, I use to read Mark's explorations about >>>>win* before he joined them, found always quite aggressive while >>>>pointing the bug and malfunctioning. However, things are very >>>>different now! >>>>To feel the difference check this [ >>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/02/VistaKernel/ >>>>] out , no he does sound like a sales person rather tech specialist. >>> >>> >>>Microsoft does that to you, mind you, so do most big consulting, >>>enterprise dev companies. >>> >> >>Quote: "In Windows Vista most I/O operations can be canceled, ..." >> ^^^^ >> >>That begs the question, which ones can't be? As far as I am concerned if >>any machine that runs Windows out here doesn't have a reset button I >>find the place where I can connect one, drill a hole and mount a reset >>button. To make that convenient I've got a small parts bin of push >>buttons here with the correct diameter drill bit right in there :-; > > > > I would assume that critcal transactions such as writes to HDD > (something that can cause corruption) cant be cancelled. I dare say > this is probably transparent to most developers and would probably > only concern kernal mode developers. As the article suggests > > "'In Windows Vista, device drivers easily register for > notification of process terminations and so most of the un-killable > process problems are gone." >My experiences point in the other direction. On DOS, there was never any problem to terminate. Ever. In Win 3.2 it was kind of ok, just slower. Everything that followed made it more tricky to terminate a hanging process. IME XP is the worst here, freezing solid about five times a day. CTRL-ALT-DEL ... nada, keeps hanging. Of course, that PC also has the magic hard reset function, works every single time ;-) No idea how Vista would fare but for now I won't touch that with a 10ft pole. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:44:54 -0700, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:>The Real Andy wrote: > >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:26:34 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Aug 19, 6:42 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:00 GMT, Joerg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>><notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Ali wrote: >>>> >>>>>>On Aug 16, 11:25 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>Ali wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>On Aug 16, 8:08 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>Dirk Zabel wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>Joerg schrieb: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Joerg wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Ok, folks, Portmon shows COM6 which is the port to a scope, via a USB >>>>>>>>>>>>connection. The terminal program (TeraTerm) is talking to it via that >>>>>>>>>>>>port. Later it's going to be a VBA routine and that's why I need to >>>>>>>>>>>>monitor, to see what gets stuck or doesn't appear. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Long story short I can set Portmon to monitor all other COM ports but >>>>>>>>>>>>not COM6. Says "Portmon cannot attach .... device may be in use". >>>>>>>>>>>>Well, duh, if it weren't in use I wouldn't need to monitor it ;-) >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Is that normal? Any remedies? Use another port monitor software? Go >>>>>>>>>>>>back to ye olde logic analyzer like I used to do it (it's heavy, >>>>>>>>>>>>leads to backaches...)? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Ok, found out a somewhat kludgy fix: Close the terminal program, start >>>>>>>>>>>Portmon, then re-open the terminal. If Portmon isn't open and set to >>>>>>>>>>>the desired COM port before the terminal program then Portmon won't >>>>>>>>>>>work, at least not here. Strange, but at least it works now. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hi Joerg, >>>>>>>>>>in my experience that's normal behaviour with all programs which use the >>>>>>>>>>com port. You have first to attach portmon to the port and than start >>>>>>>>>>the program which generates the traffic I want to watch. >>>> >>>>>>>>>Ok, thanks, Dirk. I didn't know that. It probably would be a good thing >>>>>>>>>to mention in the troubleshooting section but I couldn't see anything >>>>>>>>>about it there. >>>> >>>>>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>>>>hardware. That's why I need Portmon. >>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>> >>>>>>>>--snip-- >>>> >>>>>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>>>>hardware. >>>> >>>>>>>>Yeah, VB is most favorable for developing quick GUIs. But you might >>>>>>>>give a try to C# from .net 2005, there is built in support for com >>>>>>>>port and quite easy as compare to VB. >>>> >>>>>>>Well, I am quite cured of this .NET stuff. The scope's software needed >>>>>>>it and I had to downgrade from 2.0 because there seems to be a serious >>>>>>>lack of backwards compatibility in .NET. The file names were kept the >>>>>>>same (!). No, not my cup of tea ;-) >>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>>> >>>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>> >>>>>>Thats true, code written in .net 05 is not compatible with .net 05. >>>> >>>>BTW: Please clarify what .net 05 is? If you mean the framework shipped >>>>with VS2005, then that would be .net 2.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>That's similar to what I've seen. Talking about version control ... >>>> >>>>>As for me and my clients we'll rely on proven technology, where we know >>>>>it works. >>> >>>Certainly I meant framework environment. Do you think that app >>>developed in visual Studio 2003 can be recompiled with visual studio >>>2005? I had bad experience about that, yeah, I got a application from >>>my workmate developed in 2005 where as my machine was having 2003. So, >>>It didn't work for me. >> >> >> Yes, an app developed with 2003, can be compiled with 2005; and it can >> be compiled to target the framework that was deployed with 2003 (.net >> 1.1). >> >> As for an application developed in 2005, if you target it for .net 1.1 >> then you can compile it in 2003. Just be warned however that the .sln >> and .**proj files may not be compatible. Furthermore any automatically >> generated code, such as that for GUI apps may not port backwards to >> previous versions of visual studio either. >> >> >> >>>App was simple TCP/IP application with talking to com port. >> >> >> This does not matter. All versions of the framework can work side by >> side. If you write code that uses new classes in .net2.0, then of >> course it wont work in .net1.1. If you wtite it using the 1.1 classes, >> then it will work. >> > >For Instek's FreeWave it didn't.You said before that it needed a previous version of the framework. If its written for 1.1, then it aint going to work for 2.0 unless its recompiled for 2.0.
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:49:34 -0700, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:>The Real Andy wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:33:33 -0700, Joerg >> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >>>The Real Andy wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:36:30 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Aug 16, 3:52 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:31:16 +0200, Leo Havm�ller >>>>>> >>>>>><rtx...@nospam.nospam> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>That sounds like a useful testing tool. Where does it come from? >>>>>> >>>>>>>It comes from Mark Russinovich >>>>>>>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich). >>>>>>>You can download PortMon and many other useful tools from: >>>>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx >>>>>> >>>>>>>Leo Havm�ller. >>>>>> >>>>>>He wont go there, he hates MS. Mark and the other guy did a great job >>>>>>with all the SysInternals tools. I have been using their tools for >>>>>>years now. Hopefully they got enough cash from MS to retire on, cause >>>>>>they deserve it! >>>>> >>>>>Maybe, Its good for windows users. I hope M$ will replace their creepy >>>>>and * taskmanager with Mark's fine process explorer! >>>> >>>> >>>>Most of those tools reside permantly on my USB drive, especially >>>>process explorer. Really handy for nutting out those rouge processes >>>>on your brother-in-laws' computer! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Job does make us a good pet, I use to read Mark's explorations about >>>>>win* before he joined them, found always quite aggressive while >>>>>pointing the bug and malfunctioning. However, things are very >>>>>different now! >>>>>To feel the difference check this [ >>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/02/VistaKernel/ >>>>>] out , no he does sound like a sales person rather tech specialist. >>>> >>>> >>>>Microsoft does that to you, mind you, so do most big consulting, >>>>enterprise dev companies. >>>> >>> >>>Quote: "In Windows Vista most I/O operations can be canceled, ..." >>> ^^^^ >>> >>>That begs the question, which ones can't be? As far as I am concerned if >>>any machine that runs Windows out here doesn't have a reset button I >>>find the place where I can connect one, drill a hole and mount a reset >>>button. To make that convenient I've got a small parts bin of push >>>buttons here with the correct diameter drill bit right in there :-; >> >> >> >> I would assume that critcal transactions such as writes to HDD >> (something that can cause corruption) cant be cancelled. I dare say >> this is probably transparent to most developers and would probably >> only concern kernal mode developers. As the article suggests >> >> "'In Windows Vista, device drivers easily register for >> notification of process terminations and so most of the un-killable >> process problems are gone." >> > >My experiences point in the other direction. On DOS, there was never any >problem to terminate. Ever. In Win 3.2 it was kind of ok, just slower. >Everything that followed made it more tricky to terminate a hanging >process. IME XP is the worst here, freezing solid about five times a >day. CTRL-ALT-DEL ... nada, keeps hanging. Of course, that PC also has >the magic hard reset function, works every single time ;-)Sounds like a PC problem. When ever i hit CTRL-ALT-DEL it works just fine. Considering how many PC's I come across i never really have a problem.> >No idea how Vista would fare but for now I won't touch that with a 10ft >pole.Vista craps on XP in that respect. I have not come across one operation that cannot be cancelled yet. The one that really pissed me of in XP was networking, and i reckon that most people would agree. I found it odd how so many people bag Vista when in fact it works just fine. All the complaints I have read tend to stem from the false info about DRM and people trying to run software designed in the early 80's. As for the latter, well NT or XP wasn't any different to Vista in that respect. The only issue I have had with Vista was the fact that Nero did not work, forcing me to upgrade to Nero7.
Reply by ●August 19, 20072007-08-19
Joerg wrote:>... snip ...> > No idea how Vista would fare but for now I won't touch that with > a 10ft pole.I wouldn't touch it with _your_ 10 ft pole. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by ●August 20, 20072007-08-20
The Real Andy wrote:> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:44:54 -0700, Joerg > <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: > > >>The Real Andy wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:26:34 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Aug 19, 6:42 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:00 GMT, Joerg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>><notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ali wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>On Aug 16, 11:25 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>Ali wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Aug 16, 8:08 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dirk Zabel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Joerg schrieb: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Joerg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ok, folks, Portmon shows COM6 which is the port to a scope, via a USB >>>>>>>>>>>>>connection. The terminal program (TeraTerm) is talking to it via that >>>>>>>>>>>>>port. Later it's going to be a VBA routine and that's why I need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>monitor, to see what gets stuck or doesn't appear. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Long story short I can set Portmon to monitor all other COM ports but >>>>>>>>>>>>>not COM6. Says "Portmon cannot attach .... device may be in use". >>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, duh, if it weren't in use I wouldn't need to monitor it ;-) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is that normal? Any remedies? Use another port monitor software? Go >>>>>>>>>>>>>back to ye olde logic analyzer like I used to do it (it's heavy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>leads to backaches...)? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Ok, found out a somewhat kludgy fix: Close the terminal program, start >>>>>>>>>>>>Portmon, then re-open the terminal. If Portmon isn't open and set to >>>>>>>>>>>>the desired COM port before the terminal program then Portmon won't >>>>>>>>>>>>work, at least not here. Strange, but at least it works now. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Hi Joerg, >>>>>>>>>>>in my experience that's normal behaviour with all programs which use the >>>>>>>>>>>com port. You have first to attach portmon to the port and than start >>>>>>>>>>>the program which generates the traffic I want to watch. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Ok, thanks, Dirk. I didn't know that. It probably would be a good thing >>>>>>>>>>to mention in the troubleshooting section but I couldn't see anything >>>>>>>>>>about it there. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>>>>>hardware. That's why I need Portmon. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>>> >>>>>>>>>--snip-- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Oh well, on to learning VBA then. Not that easy for an analog dude like >>>>>>>>>>myself, creating user forms and trying to make them control some >>>>>>>>>>hardware. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yeah, VB is most favorable for developing quick GUIs. But you might >>>>>>>>>give a try to C# from .net 2005, there is built in support for com >>>>>>>>>port and quite easy as compare to VB. >>>>> >>>>>>>>Well, I am quite cured of this .NET stuff. The scope's software needed >>>>>>>>it and I had to downgrade from 2.0 because there seems to be a serious >>>>>>>>lack of backwards compatibility in .NET. The file names were kept the >>>>>>>>same (!). No, not my cup of tea ;-) >>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Regards, Joerg >>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>>> >>>>>>>Thats true, code written in .net 05 is not compatible with .net 05. >>>>> >>>>>BTW: Please clarify what .net 05 is? If you mean the framework shipped >>>>>with VS2005, then that would be .net 2.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>That's similar to what I've seen. Talking about version control ... >>>>> >>>>>>As for me and my clients we'll rely on proven technology, where we know >>>>>>it works. >>>> >>>>Certainly I meant framework environment. Do you think that app >>>>developed in visual Studio 2003 can be recompiled with visual studio >>>>2005? I had bad experience about that, yeah, I got a application from >>>>my workmate developed in 2005 where as my machine was having 2003. So, >>>>It didn't work for me. >>> >>> >>>Yes, an app developed with 2003, can be compiled with 2005; and it can >>>be compiled to target the framework that was deployed with 2003 (.net >>>1.1). >>> >>>As for an application developed in 2005, if you target it for .net 1.1 >>>then you can compile it in 2003. Just be warned however that the .sln >>>and .**proj files may not be compatible. Furthermore any automatically >>>generated code, such as that for GUI apps may not port backwards to >>>previous versions of visual studio either. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>App was simple TCP/IP application with talking to com port. >>> >>> >>>This does not matter. All versions of the framework can work side by >>>side. If you write code that uses new classes in .net2.0, then of >>>course it wont work in .net1.1. If you wtite it using the 1.1 classes, >>>then it will work. >>> >> >>For Instek's FreeWave it didn't. > > > You said before that it needed a previous version of the framework. If > its written for 1.1, then it aint going to work for 2.0 unless its > recompiled for 2.0.Well, that proves the point. .NET appears to lack in backward compatibility. Else routines written for 1.1 would work. Even Windows is better in that respect. I do not have to recompile anything from the DOS or Windows 98 era to run it on XP. It just works. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●August 20, 20072007-08-20
The Real Andy wrote:> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:49:34 -0700, Joerg > <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: > > >>The Real Andy wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:33:33 -0700, Joerg >>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>The Real Andy wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:36:30 -0000, Ali <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Aug 16, 3:52 pm, The Real Andy <thereala...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:31:16 +0200, Leo Havm�ller >>>>>>> >>>>>>><rtx...@nospam.nospam> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That sounds like a useful testing tool. Where does it come from? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It comes from Mark Russinovich >>>>>>>>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich). >>>>>>>>You can download PortMon and many other useful tools from: >>>>>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Leo Havm�ller. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He wont go there, he hates MS. Mark and the other guy did a great job >>>>>>>with all the SysInternals tools. I have been using their tools for >>>>>>>years now. Hopefully they got enough cash from MS to retire on, cause >>>>>>>they deserve it! >>>>>> >>>>>>Maybe, Its good for windows users. I hope M$ will replace their creepy >>>>>>and * taskmanager with Mark's fine process explorer! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Most of those tools reside permantly on my USB drive, especially >>>>>process explorer. Really handy for nutting out those rouge processes >>>>>on your brother-in-laws' computer! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Job does make us a good pet, I use to read Mark's explorations about >>>>>>win* before he joined them, found always quite aggressive while >>>>>>pointing the bug and malfunctioning. However, things are very >>>>>>different now! >>>>>>To feel the difference check this [ >>>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/02/VistaKernel/ >>>>>>] out , no he does sound like a sales person rather tech specialist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Microsoft does that to you, mind you, so do most big consulting, >>>>>enterprise dev companies. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Quote: "In Windows Vista most I/O operations can be canceled, ..." >>>> ^^^^ >>>> >>>>That begs the question, which ones can't be? As far as I am concerned if >>>>any machine that runs Windows out here doesn't have a reset button I >>>>find the place where I can connect one, drill a hole and mount a reset >>>>button. To make that convenient I've got a small parts bin of push >>>>buttons here with the correct diameter drill bit right in there :-; >>> >>> >>> >>>I would assume that critcal transactions such as writes to HDD >>>(something that can cause corruption) cant be cancelled. I dare say >>>this is probably transparent to most developers and would probably >>>only concern kernal mode developers. As the article suggests >>> >>>"'In Windows Vista, device drivers easily register for >>>notification of process terminations and so most of the un-killable >>>process problems are gone." >>> >> >>My experiences point in the other direction. On DOS, there was never any >>problem to terminate. Ever. In Win 3.2 it was kind of ok, just slower. >>Everything that followed made it more tricky to terminate a hanging >>process. IME XP is the worst here, freezing solid about five times a >>day. CTRL-ALT-DEL ... nada, keeps hanging. Of course, that PC also has >>the magic hard reset function, works every single time ;-) > > > Sounds like a PC problem. When ever i hit CTRL-ALT-DEL it works just > fine. Considering how many PC's I come across i never really have a > problem. > > >>No idea how Vista would fare but for now I won't touch that with a 10ft >>pole. > > > Vista craps on XP in that respect. I have not come across one > operation that cannot be cancelled yet. The one that really pissed me > of in XP was networking, and i reckon that most people would agree. > > I found it odd how so many people bag Vista when in fact it works just > fine. All the complaints I have read tend to stem from the false info > about DRM and people trying to run software designed in the early > 80's. As for the latter, well NT or XP wasn't any different to Vista > in that respect. The only issue I have had with Vista was the fact > that Nero did not work, forcing me to upgrade to Nero7.As for SW from the early 80's there is a lot of that here in my lab. Mostly SW that simply doesn't come any other way, where the design teams have disbanded decades ago but where there is no alternative. It must work, it's required in my case. One example are routines to design wave digital filters. So if an OS doesn't support this then that OS is off limits out here until they fix it. Not sure about Vistas bloat factor but I've read that it needs at least 512MB of RAM. Well, I am not going to ditch any PC that has less ;-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
