Searching \ for '[EE] Best (most transparent) USB <--> RS232 conver' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/serials.htm?key=rs232
Search entire site for: 'Best (most transparent) USB <--> RS232 conver'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Best (most transparent) USB <--> RS232 conver'
2007\03\14@170639 by William Couture

face picon face
Any suggestions for the "most transparent" USB to RS232 converter?

Once the USB driver is installed (Windows XP probably), you can't
tell it from a real RS232 port?

Thanks,
  Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2007\03\14@171426 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 17:06 -0400, William Couture wrote:
> Any suggestions for the "most transparent" USB to RS232 converter?
>
> Once the USB driver is installed (Windows XP probably), you can't
> tell it from a real RS232 port?

Define "you can't tell"? Every USB-RS232 will at least have an entry in
device manager showing it's not a real USB port.

>From a software perspective the FTDI based ones are very "transparent",
aside from the "high" COM number.

TTYL

2007\03\14@172025 by peter green

flavicon
face

> From a software perspective the FTDI based ones are very "transparent",
> aside from the "high" COM number.
presumablly you can edit this down in device manager provided you have a free slot for it.



2007\03\14@172542 by David VanHorn

picon face
I've had very good luck with Edgeports.

2007\03\14@180200 by Brent Brown

picon face
> Any suggestions for the "most transparent" USB to RS232 converter?
>
> Once the USB driver is installed (Windows XP probably), you can't tell
> it from a real RS232 port?

Hi Bill,

I've had good success with the Bafo BF-810 adaptors and sell lot's of them to
customers. They use the Prolific chip.

The FTDI chips and drivers for embedded apps are also brilliant.

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, St Andrews,
Hamilton 3200, New Zealand
Ph: +64 7 849 0069
Fax: +64 7 849 0071
Cell: 027 433 4069
eMail:  spam_OUTbrent.brownTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz


2007\03\14@192203 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:18 +0000, peter green wrote:
> > From a software perspective the FTDI based ones are very "transparent",
> > aside from the "high" COM number.
> presumablly you can edit this down in device manager provided you have a free slot for it

True, but I don't see how having to do that would "conceal" the fact
that it's really a USB device. TTYL

2007\03\14@202902 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 3/15/07, Herbert Graf <.....mailinglist3KILLspamspam@spam@farcite.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:18 +0000, peter green wrote:
> > > From a software perspective the FTDI based ones are very
> "transparent",
> > > aside from the "high" COM number.
> > presumablly you can edit this down in device manager provided you have a
> free slot for it
>
> True, but I don't see how having to do that would "conceal" the fact
> that it's really a USB device. TTYL


I thought by transparent, he meant that writing directly to the I/O ports
should have an
identical effect at the far end of the serial cable.

I imagine there are legacy apps that say just let you specify com1 or com2
and then
write directly to the I/O addresses.

John

2007\03\14@214330 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
John La Rooy wrote:

> I thought by transparent, he meant that writing directly to the I/O ports
> should have an identical effect at the far end of the serial cable.
>
> I imagine there are legacy apps that say just let you specify com1 or
> com2 and then write directly to the I/O addresses.

I don't think a WinXP application can do this. (The OP talked about WinXP.)

Gerhard

2007\03\14@220158 by Cristóvão Dalla Costa

picon face
On 3/14/07, Gerhard Fiedler <listsspamKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
>
> John La Rooy wrote:
>
> > I thought by transparent, he meant that writing directly to the I/O
> ports
> > should have an identical effect at the far end of the serial cable.
> >
> > I imagine there are legacy apps that say just let you specify com1 or
> > com2 and then write directly to the I/O addresses.
>
> I don't think a WinXP application can do this. (The OP talked about
> WinXP.)


A windows 3.1 app running under XP can. It`s amazing how some modern
applications still use the 16 bit API for stuff like that.

2007\03\14@221948 by peter green

flavicon
face


{Quote hidden}

they can probablly still use the 16 bit serial APIs but i don't think they can touch hardware directly.


2007\03\15@030543 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> From a software perspective the FTDI based ones are very
> "transparent", aside from the "high" COM number.

You can set them to any number you wat, even COM1 if it is free.

But there will always be differences:
- no hardware (register level) access
- timing is very different

IME whether a converter is transparent depends mostly on the
application.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\03\15@042620 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> I thought by transparent, he meant that writing directly to
> the I/O ports should have an identical effect at the far end
> of the serial cable.
>
> I imagine there are legacy apps that say just let you specify
> com1 or com2 and then write directly to the I/O addresses.

That can be done, and probably such a 'hardware faking' driver exists
somewhere, but the timing would still be vastly different from the real
thing.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\03\15@080122 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
> Any suggestions for the "most transparent" USB to RS232 converter?
>
> Once the USB driver is installed (Windows XP probably), you can't
> tell it from a real RS232 port?
>
> Thanks,
>    Bill
>
> --

One problem I have seen with most (all?) rs232 to usb converters is that an  
application using ordinary com functions (as would be a real com port) gets
very confused (and even stone hangs) if the usb converter is unplugged from the
PC. This seems to be happening in the driver side of the software (or perhaps
deep down in the com port object) but no events are sent to my application
through the ordinary com(-port) software interface. I can't even catch an
exception in my .net C# application. I see this as a potential problem in our
software since the usb device is very easy to unplug.

Maybe I could get an event from the OS telling me that the usb device is
removed but then again I don't want to bother with usb stuff since I don't know
and don't really care if it is an usb port or a real com port. Anybody got a
solution to this?

/Ruben
==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
@spam@rubenKILLspamspampp.sbbs.se
==============================

2007\03\15@081415 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Maybe I could get an event from the OS telling me that the usb device
>is removed but then again I don't want to bother with usb stuff since
>I don't know and don't really care if it is an usb port or a real com
>port. Anybody got a solution to this?

There must be a way of doing this, as memory sticks notify the application
when they are removed, which then closes any associated windows.

2007\03\15@091814 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
> >Maybe I could get an event from the OS telling me that the usb device
> >is removed but then again I don't want to bother with usb stuff since
> >I don't know and don't really care if it is an usb port or a real com
> >port. Anybody got a solution to this?
>
> There must be a way of doing this, as memory sticks notify the application when
> they are removed, which then closes any associated windows.
>

Yes, but then I first have to find out that it is a USB device I really am
talking too. I think the problem lies in either the driver or the com port
object and it's communication with the driver. Since the com port object
doesn't know about the usb stuff either I guess it assumes that the port can
never dissapear, which would be a fairly reasonable assumption for the a real
com port but not for a usb com port.

/Ruben


==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
KILLspamrubenKILLspamspampp.sbbs.se
==============================

2007\03\15@103007 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face


Ruben Jönsson wrote:
>> Any suggestions for the "most transparent" USB to RS232 converter?
>>
>> Once the USB driver is installed (Windows XP probably), you can't
>> tell it from a real RS232 port?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    Bill
>>
>> --
>>    
>
> One problem I have seen with most (all?) rs232 to usb converters is that an  
> application using ordinary com functions (as would be a real com port) gets
> very confused (and even stone hangs) if the usb converter is unplugged from the
> PC.
This certainly is not for the FTDI devices, you detect unplugging /
plugging, do software unplug / replug,
which all gives possibilities fully unknown for RS232.

cheers,
Stef Mientki


KvK: 41055629


2007\03\15@110010 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Yes, but my application and probably the .net com port object doesn't know that
it is a usb device. It treats it as an old fashoned fixed com port.

I understand that the driver senses the connect/disconnect but my application,
thinking it is a com port, doesn't.

/Ruben
==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
RemoveMErubenTakeThisOuTspampp.sbbs.se
==============================

2007\03\15@184753 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
peter green wrote:

>>> I don't think a WinXP application can do this. (The OP talked about
>>> WinXP.)
>>
>> A windows 3.1 app running under XP can. It`s amazing how some modern
>> applications still use the 16 bit API for stuff like that.
>
> they can probablly still use the 16 bit serial APIs but i don't think
> they can touch hardware directly.

Yes, AFAIK if at all, they can talk to a virtualized serial chip, not to
the real one. I don't think anything but a kernel driver can talk to
hardware directly in WinXP.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...