Post by thread:[OT]: dos serial port usage under xp

Lawrence (spam_OUTllileTakeThisOuTSALTONUSA.COM) wrote: > > ... I am still using Win95 on this machine, and it works just > fine for everything I want to do. If I got a new computer I would nuke > the operating system first thing and get win98. It is good and stable, > runs everything, and doesn't have the glitches of the stuff that is newer. > Lawrence wrote (2002-09-16 ): > >I ride a bicycle to work most days... I wish I could run Win95 and bicycle to my work too. Or, better, horse and no electronics at all. Or, even better, live on trees and eat bananas :-) What is the reasonable amount of civilization? I don't know, really. Mike. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 18:01, Joaquim J. Peixoto wrote: > It is frustrating as hell, I agree. But whoever has worked with the > "professional" OS's from Mr. Gates (eg. NT, Win2k and XP) or other > non-personal OS's knows that the direct hardware access like manipulation of > the serial ports can not be allowed or the result will be an unstable system > or at least an non-secure one. Oh really? Don't tell any Unix folks, we've always had direct access to the hardware via C libraries since, oh... before I was born... and I'd daresay that even the early versions of Unix were more stable than Mr. Gate's "professional quality" junk. And later versions of Unix (like Linux) now also provide the source to the kernel itself so you can really get at the hardware directly -- that may be slightly more "unstable" if you don't know what you're doing, but it's an option you definitely don't have with the Microsoft crud. Last time I bothered to look at their financial reports, Microsoft had about $2 BILLION U.S. in CASH in their "war chest" for legal defense, so they'll skate with a virtual slap on the wrist. However, Gates & Co. are CONVICTED criminals... folks shouldn't forget that. They going through SENTENCING now... the trial's over. I don't think justice will be served, though. Too many people drank the kool-aid. -- Nate Duehr, .....nateKILLspam@spam@natetech.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 20:47, Mike Singer wrote: > I wish I could run Win95 and bicycle to my work too. > Or, better, horse and no electronics at all. Or, even > better, live on trees and eat bananas :-) > What is the reasonable amount of civilization? I don't > know, really. ROTFLMAO! You're equating newer versions of Windows to higher civilization?! Oh... stop, it hurts... I'm laughing so hard... ouch...! -- Nate Duehr, .....nateKILLspam.....natetech.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

> > It is frustrating as hell, I agree. But whoever has worked with the > > "professional" OS's from Mr. Gates (eg. NT, Win2k and XP) or other > > non-personal OS's knows that the direct hardware access like manipulation of > > the serial ports can not be allowed or the result will be an unstable system > > or at least an non-secure one. I'm not clear on it not being possible to have selected hardware access (or decent emulated hardware access*) without loss of security, apart from the security from that point outwards, rather than inwards. Someone may wish to educate me (and presumably others here) on this point. Russell McMahon * - walks like an I/O port, talks like an I/O port, for practical purposes APPEARS you are dealing directly with an I/O port. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList piclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

> * - walks like an I/O port, talks like an I/O port, for > practical purposes > APPEARS you are dealing directly with an I/O port. Add: is as fast as an I/O port, or at least not slower by a big factor Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList @spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

>I'm not clear on it not being possible to have selected hardware access (or >decent emulated hardware access*) without loss of security, apart from the >security from that point outwards, rather than inwards. Someone may wish to >educate me (and presumably others here) on this point. > > Russell McMahon It is possible! At least the serial port access and, for instance, under XP. I have faced the problem and had to write a serial port programmer that controls RS232 signals. It works. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

Nate, You understood me wrong. I sincerely wish for and support anyone that can raise any serious opposition to Microsoft. It can only be positive. A few years ago we had a similar episode where the "villain" was IBM (if anyone remembers). I concede not being as knowledgeable on the Unix field as in MS. This is a consequence of having more work orders for software under Windows. If you want to write Windows software that fiddles with ports and such, you can always write your own device driver. Yes, they gracefully allow you to do it. Politely yours, J. Peixoto -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

Nate Duehr wrote: > ...Don't tell any Unix folks, we've always had direct ... >... the early versions of Unix were more stable than > Mr. Gate's "professional quality" junk... > ... you definitely don't have with the Microsoft crud... Could you, please, behave yourself as a gentleman, not as one of these "Unix folks". Thanks in advance. Mike. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu