• Bink under WIN-XP

    From Mike Luther@1:117/3001 to All on Sat May 1 15:45:18 2004
    I've been able to help my net members run BINK 2.60 under WIN-98/ME for a number of years now running COM-IP and WINFOSSIL with no problems.

    Recently a WIN-XP box was left in a basket on my porchstep (In humor here!) with the goal to establish BINK/MAX/SQUISH on it as well. OK, I've finaly got it completely updated for critical error fixes and so on.

    I've also gotten the COM/IP version 2.4.1 which I have licensed installed on this WIN-XP box. I've also gotten my licensed version of ZOC for Windows installed on it and running. Connected to my I/P via dial-up I have no trouble
    connecting via TELNET to I/P instances of BINK at all.

    But I can't get BINK to either see COM/IP's fossil, nor WINFOSSIL at all,either
    in 'connected' fashion to my I/P with the dialer, nor in any direct COMM port mode for the intended POTS version of BINK that works fine with all this in WIN-ME and so on.

    Yes, I know about the issue of COM/IP's internal fossil that doesn't work under
    WIN-95/8/ME. That's why I've always installed WINFOSSIL to work around that. Typically, the COM/IP settings that enable this are to enable the service on COM4, for example, then to enable WINFOSSIL as task 0003 for COM4 also. Away we go.

    But the WINFOSSIL version which will install on WIN-95/8/ME just fine, that initializes on boot-up, obviously is using the \windows\system directory. That won't work, as far as I can determine in WIN-XP. WIN-XP wants such things associated with \windows\system32. OK, for that task, there is a different version of WINFOSSIL which is allegedly for WIN-NT, It does 'install' into the
    WIN-XP enviornment.

    It also is to be run via either an AUTOEXEC.NT shim, or via a modification in the CONFIG.NT file - which globally will cast it into operation when a .CMD file session is started. Maybe so. But no combination of task or COMM port assignment I can enable will let BT32 see whatever it has fossilized as a comport.

    Nor .. will BT32, even see an enabled COM/IP fossil that allegedly is supposed to work fine with WIN-NT.

    Does anyone have any help for me to get BT32 going under XP this way?

    Thanks!


    Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

    Mike @ 1:117/3001

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)
  • From Peter Knapper@3:772/1.10 to Mike Luther on Sun May 2 11:07:20 2004
    Hi Mike,

    Recently a WIN-XP box was left in a basket on my
    porchstep (In humor here!) with the goal to establish
    BINK/MAX/SQUISH on it as well. OK, I've finaly got it
    completely updated for critical error fixes and so on.

    Sorry, I have never seen XP (and I will avoid it at all costs), so I cant offer
    any specific suggestions, however something that has been pointed out to me recently may apply. It seems Laptop manufactureres are being PUSHED by M$ into an environment where there is no native SERIAL port on their machines. If a user wants one of those, they have to install a PCMCIA card serial port. The apparent reason for this is that USB is now seen by M$ for all serial type connections (and forget all existing serial port H/W out there today!). As such
    M$ have deliberatly altered the way XP "views" the serial H/W.

    This may help explain the reason for the apparent difficulty you are experiencing, standard serial ports are no longer serviced by default with XP, you HAVE to do something extra to get them recognised. What that may be I have no idea, however I have seen much comment that this is a serious issue for support users with Laptops that absolutely MUST have a fully functional Serial port to work with existing S/W and H/W, the M$ solution with XP is NOT cutting it in many situations. EG: Just try sending a BREAK signal using a PCMCIA card serial port, 90% of the ones available can't do that, and BREAK is one key that
    is ESSENTIAL on Cisco Network H/W as a last choice option to recover a failed box.

    This is not much help, but it may give you some ideas on the options available.

    Good luck..........pk.


    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
  • From Steven Horn@1:17/67 to Mike Luther on Sun May 2 01:17:25 2004
    Mike Luther (1:117/3001) wrote to All at 14:45 on 01 May 2004:

    @MSGID: 1:117/3001.0 4093fe4e
    I've been able to help my net members run BINK 2.60 under WIN-98/ME
    for a number of years now running COM-IP and WINFOSSIL with no
    problems.

    Recently a WIN-XP box was left in a basket on my porchstep (In
    humor here!) with the goal to establish BINK/MAX/SQUISH on it as
    well. OK, I've finaly got it completely updated for critical error
    fixes and so on.

    I've also gotten the COM/IP version 2.4.1 which I have licensed
    installed on this WIN-XP box. I've also gotten my licensed version
    of ZOC for Windows installed on it and running. Connected to my
    I/P via dial-up I have no trouble connecting via TELNET to I/P
    instances of BINK at all.

    But I can't get BINK to either see COM/IP's fossil, nor WINFOSSIL
    at all,either in 'connected' fashion to my I/P with the dialer, nor
    in any direct COMM port mode for the intended POTS version of BINK
    that works fine with all this in WIN-ME and so on.

    Yes, I know about the issue of COM/IP's internal fossil that
    doesn't work under WIN-95/8/ME. That's why I've always installed WINFOSSIL to work around that. Typically, the COM/IP settings that
    enable this are to enable the service on COM4, for example, then to
    enable WINFOSSIL as task 0003 for COM4 also. Away we go.

    But the WINFOSSIL version which will install on WIN-95/8/ME just
    fine, that initializes on boot-up, obviously is using the
    \windows\system directory. That won't work, as far as I can
    determine in WIN-XP. WIN-XP wants such things associated with \windows\system32. OK, for that task, there is a different version
    of WINFOSSIL which is allegedly for WIN-NT, It does 'install' into
    the WIN-XP environment.

    My immediate guess is that WinFossil is not XP compatible. However, there is a
    FAQ at the following URL address which may help with determining that:

    http://www.tactical-sw.com/public/Technotes/TN-dos-applications.html

    I also understand that NetFOSS 0.8 which is apparently available from JUGE.COM will work with XP.

    Incidentally, I recall that the NT version of WinFossil did not work well with my Windows 2000. The way I fixed that was to subscribe to ADSL.:-)

    Take care,

    Steven Horn (steven_a_horn@yahoo.ca)
    Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT
    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Yukon Mail (northof60.tzo.com), Whitehorse,Canada (1:17/67)
  • From Mike Tripp@1:382/61 to Peter Knapper on Sun May 2 08:46:52 2004
    Hello Peter!

    02 May 04 10:07, Peter Knapper wrote to Mike Luther:

    It seems Laptop manufactureres are being PUSHED by M$ into an
    environment where there is no native SERIAL port on their
    machines. If a user wants one of those, they have to install a
    PCMCIA card serial port. The apparent reason for this is that USB
    is now seen by M$ for all serial type connections (and forget all
    existing serial port H/W out there today!).

    The push (and design) of USB has come from an industry consortium of hardware vendors...not some M$ conspiracy. 9 and 25-pin serial ports, parallel printer ports, AT- and PS/2-style keyboard ports and mouse ports are all royalty bearing, patented designs of IBM and each vendor must have some arrangement with IBM in order to provide them. Besides writing checks to IBM, notebooks have extra issues with the internal and external real estate required to support them and the related thermal and power/battery-life impacts. If anything, waiting for MS to provide proper functional OS support for USB devices has done more to slow the adoption rate than accelerate it. The hardware has been around since the Win95/NT4 generation of MS OS.

    Any perception of recent urgency on MS's part might not be unrelated to the fact that they now have a certain small form-factor hardware platform of their own to peddle, too.<g>

    .\\ike

    --- GoldED 2.50+
    * Origin: -=( The TechnoDrome )=- Austin,TX 512-327-8598 33.6k (1:382/61)
  • From Peter Knapper@3:772/1.10 to Mike Tripp on Mon May 3 10:54:42 2004
    Hi Mike,

    It seems Laptop manufactureres are being PUSHED by M$ into an
    environment where there is no native SERIAL port on their
    machines. If a user wants one of those, they have to install a
    PCMCIA card serial port. The apparent reason for this is that USB
    is now seen by M$ for all serial type connections (and forget all
    existing serial port H/W out there today!).

    The push (and design) of USB has come from an industry consortium of hardware vendors...not some M$ conspiracy. 9 and 25-pin serial ports, parallel printer ports, AT- and PS/2-style keyboard
    ports and mouse ports are all royalty bearing, patented
    designs of IBM and each vendor must have some
    arrangement with IBM in order to provide them.

    The DB-9 and DB-25 Serial connectors, and the Centronics Parallel printer connector have nothing to do with IBM, the are hardware standards that existed long before IBM used them on the PC. The AT & PS/2 connectors however are all IBM.

    If anything, waiting for MS to provide
    proper functional OS support for USB devices has done
    more to slow the adoption rate than accelerate it. The
    hardware has been around since the Win95/NT4 generation
    of MS OS.

    Bill is just making sure he makes enough profit from it.

    My main issue is the huge no. of existing environments that still need FULLY FUNCTIONAL Serial support, not just with the connector, but with the capability
    that the interface provides. The problem comes from component integration, rather than physical design issues, in their hurry to bring out "comparabile" devices, they leave out certain critical elements of the overall interface.

    I have been involved in discussions regarding exactly WHAT Laptop H/W is able to provide the functionality required to various support groups, and the picture being built is not pretty, mainly because the control signals need to be emulated where the H/W does not exist to drive them natively. So far the generation of a CORRECT (and some times varible length) BREAK signal seems to be the main show stopper, to many it has been forgotten...

    Cheers.........pk.


    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
  • From Gord Hannah@1:17/23.1 to Mike Luther on Sun May 2 10:24:14 2004
    Replying to a message from Mike Luther 1:117/3001 to All,

    About Bink under WIN-XP, On Sat May 01 2004

    I've been able to help my net members run BINK 2.60 under WIN-98/ME

    Recently a WIN-XP box was left in a basket on my porchstep (In humor
    here!) with the goal to establish BINK/MAX/SQUISH on it as well.
    OK, I've finaly got it completely updated for critical error fixes
    and so on.

    Nor .. will BT32, even see an enabled COM/IP fossil that allegedly
    is supposed to work fine with WIN-NT.

    Does anyone have any help for me to get BT32 going under XP this
    way?

    The immediate thought I had was I wonder if the Bink-XE versions might work. Just a thought that is off the wall.

    Hope this helps. Keep us posted.

    We are a fine board trying to make it better.
    http://www.pris.bc.ca/ghannah
    ghannah@pris.bc.ca
    Cheers! Gord
    -=Team OS/2=-
    --- timEd/2 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Marsh BBS (c), Dawson Creek, BC Canada (1:17/23.1)
  • From Mike Tripp@1:382/61 to Peter Knapper on Mon May 3 08:49:12 2004
    Hello Peter!

    03 May 04 09:54, Peter Knapper wrote to Mike Tripp:

    The DB-9 and DB-25 Serial connectors, and the Centronics Parallel
    printer connector have nothing to do with IBM, the are hardware
    standards that existed long before IBM used them on the PC. The AT &
    PS/2 connectors however are all IBM.

    [...]

    My main issue is the huge no. of existing environments that still
    need FULLY FUNCTIONAL Serial support, not just with the connector,
    but with the capability that the interface provides. The problem
    comes from component integration, rather than physical design
    issues, in their hurry to bring out "comparabile" devices, they
    leave out certain critical elements of the overall interface.

    Obviously you understand that there is more to an interface than the selection of the physical connector...so it shouldn't be a surprise that the royalties paid by PC vendors to IBM are for providing their interfaces and not the presence of the standard connectors which might represent other interfaces.

    I have been involved in discussions regarding exactly WHAT Laptop
    H/W is able to provide the functionality required to various
    support groups, and the picture being built is not pretty, mainly
    because the control signals need to be emulated where the H/W does
    not exist to drive them natively. So far the generation of a
    CORRECT (and some times varible length) BREAK signal seems to be
    the main show stopper, to many it has been forgotten...

    Obviously you understand that you have a specific hardware issue with a specific hardware implementation. This is not a general indication of the state of the PC industry in the general, the notebook segment in particular, nor evidence of some Microsoft conspiracy to somehow maximize their profits by forcing you to buy USB hardware. I'm quite confident that their USB implementation is even more likely to be more broken.<g>

    Fortunately, Mike is interested in a virtual serial port implementation and not
    a physical one...so he should be safe until the shareware programmers start licensing the rights to faithfully emulate a "bad hardware emulation on USB notebooks running Windows XP" mode.<gdr>

    .\\ike

    --- GoldED 2.50+
    * Origin: -=( The TechnoDrome )=- Austin,TX 512-327-8598 33.6k (1:382/61)
  • From Joe Schweier@1:275/312.1 to Mike Luther on Tue May 4 13:45:50 2004
    Hello Mike.

    Replying to a msg dated 01 May 04 14:45, from you to all.

    Okay... me ythinks the problem is this...

    U R trying to run a 32bit mailer/bbs right??

    And U R using the fossil to do??? run doors?? or ??

    I use com-ip here... and use the fossil to run frontdoor .. as a point... my 32bit mailer does not need a fossil.

    U can't do any 32bit 16bit mixing.

    Joe

    ---
    * Origin: Joe's Computer, Crystal River, Fl USA telnet.joesbbs.c (1:275/312.1)
  • From Jerry Schwartz@1:142/928 to Mike Luther on Thu May 6 19:09:12 2004
    Hello, Mike...

    I'm not using COM/IP (I use BinkD for IP), but I use BT/XE with NTCOMM and it works fine.

    Regards,

    Jerry Schwartz

    mailto:jerryschwartz@comfortable.com
    http://www.writebynight.com

    --- Msged/NT 6.0.1
    * Origin: Write by Night (1:142/928)
  • From Danny Walters@1:116/116 to Mike Luther on Sun Jun 13 23:15:59 2004
    You said:

    I've been able to help my net members run BINK 2.60 under WIN-98/ME
    for a number of years now running COM-IP and WINFOSSIL with no
    problems.

    [...]

    Does anyone have any help for me to get BT32 going under XP this
    way?

    Ok, so I'm late to the game. :)

    I did a marginally similar thing here with Win98, except I was using an old release of NetModem instead of COM/IP. I just loaded an instance of the venerable BNU 1.70 as the fossil right in the dos window with the mailer, and it worked great with FD 2.26 and BinkXE XH7.

    Depending on how 'dos' the command prompt in XP is and whether XP will allow such low-level control over a 'serial port' or not, it may work.


    -dw

    ---
    * Origin: Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma - Nashville, TN - (1:116/116)