ANN: new Pulsonix version 3 PCB software released

[Meindert Sprang]

"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

 

[Kevin Aylward]

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.

 

[Chaos Master]

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.

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 MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Chaos Master]

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 MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Jerry Avins]

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.

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.

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

 

[Jerry Avins]

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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Meindert Sprang]

"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.

Meindert

 

[Kevin Aylward]

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.

Its 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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

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.

 

[Jerry Avins]

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.

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?

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

 

[Robin KAY]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

Do you mean Wabi?

--
Wishing you good fortune,
--Robin Kay-- (komadori)

 

[Chaos Master]

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.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Chaos Master]

CBFalconer posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
<40548DCA.28B35064@yahoo.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:12:35 GMT:

In addition, why do you want to contribute to the MS oligarchy?
Go and read their current EULAs with care and mounting horror.

I don't use XP because I'd have to download a LOT of patches and this would be a
pain in the a** with my dial-up connection.

Myself, I have some really old MS-DOS programs that do not run under XP.

My $0.02.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Meindert Sprang]

"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?

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.

Meindert

 

[Boris Mohar]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:21:52 -0200, Chaos Master
<wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> 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).

My 98 starts to misbehave almost every time when I empty the trash. Any
clues?

--

Boris Mohar

 

[rickman]

Leon Heller wrote:

"Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de...
Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
4052d7a8$0$10149$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sat, 13 Mar 2004
09:43:04 -
0000:


If you want another shock look at this abortion:

http://www.otl.co.uk/

The developer seems to have a very high opinion of it, but it doesn't
even
have rubber-banding on the connections!

And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me after
this).

For other shock i'd look at VUTRAX, that has a GUI which I would call a
CUI
(Confusing User Interface), IMHO. Their help system is a pain on the a**.

A friend of mine has used the original DOS version of Vutrax for about 25
years. It's probably because he comes from Yorkshire.

I find it very strange that several PCB packages don't conform to the usual
intuitive way of selecting objects - just put the pointer on them and click
the mouse button. That's the way most other applications work these days.

Yes, that can be very awkward to learn and get used to. It comes from
being around before GUIs. But I found Eagle was not hard to use once
you got used to it. Some of the features were actually highly
productive. But it is a PITA every time I go back to it from other,
normal apps.

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Robin KAY wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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.

Do you mean Wabi?

Dosnt ring a bell.

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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Boris Mohar wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:21:52 -0200, Chaos Master
wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> 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).

My 98 starts to misbehave almost every time when I empty the trash.
Any clues?

That's one of the problems I described in one of my other posts.
Deleting large numbers of files jaunts it into outer space. Why? Fuck
Knows!!! I do know that I have never had that occur with XP.



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.

 

[Chaos Master]

Boris Mohar posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
<mpd950po6rcd95q9gb1nhelvn5fi7v9t8m@4ax.com>, at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:51:40 -
0500:

My 98 starts to misbehave almost every time when I empty the trash. Any
clues?

I don't use the Recycle Bin at all. I use DELTREE and DEL on a MS-DOS prompt.

Or better yet, don't use Explorer, get LiteStep and 2xExplorer.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Chuck Harris]

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.