http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium http://www.emc2004.org/ --------------------------------------------------
Good People The issue of backwards compatibility for software that talks to the I/O ports is not necessarily based on use of Win32 vs. Win16 calls. Please note that an NT-based OS is kernel-mode, thus will require "permissions" to talk to a port. The DOS-based OSs (avec GUI: Win 3, 9x) allow direct control of hardware, mostly because memory-mapped devices and the PCI memory arbitration are exposed to the programmer. BSD and Linux may require a kernel re-compile to implement a hardware device driver; and I/O under any UN*X can require (very) different software architecture. In general, I have found porting Windoze code to Linux to be rather problematic. As compliance people, we need to be aware that the IEC and other "regulatory" bodies have published some verrrrry interesting standards for both safety-critical software and software that controls instrumentation (e.g., IEC 17025). For example, as part of SMT accreditation, the NCB looked at my instrument drivers, and verified that the source was a controlled document. luck, Brian -----Original Message----- Derek Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to beg to differ. It's often the case SW can't be run on XP/2000 > from Win 9*. This is because it's 32 bit Vs 16 bit. A lot of the hooks, > just plain don't work. Although this thread gets rather off-topic: since Windows 95, the Win32 API is used. 16 bit API was used until Win 3.11 or WfW (although there was the Win32s extension). Not many really important changes and extensions were made to the Win32 API since Win95, and (besides drivers) there are _very_ little things working with Win9x but not NT-based OS (NT4, W200, XP). You should avoid to use specific things in software for long-lived and expensive equipment and use only the common Win32 functions. And people should should to use common hardware interfaces for such devices. Ethernet seems to be the best choice with a perfect API support, always present on recent PCs. Oliver -- Oliver Betz, Muenchen From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:55 AM To: Derek Walton Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Ralph McDiarmid Subject: RE: EMI Report Generators Hi Derek, How difficult would it be to port the code over to to a real operating system (Linux)? Regards Doug "Derek Walton" <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 05/25/04 10:51 PM To: "Ralph McDiarmid" <[email protected]> cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: EMI Report Generators Hi Ralph, I have to beg to differ. It's often the case SW can't be run on XP/2000 >from Win 9*. This is because it's 32 bit Vs 16 bit. A lot of the hooks, just plain don't work. We had to write Compliance 3 from the ground up to run on a 32 bit OS, however, some Win 98 2nd Edition installations have been running OK. It doesn't hurt to try... but don't hold your breath Cheers, Derek Walton Ralph McDiarmid wrote on 5/25/2004, 3:27 PM: > Have you tried the software running under WinXP? > > It's unusual for software running in Win9x to not run correctly in WinXP, > but any device drivers will likely need updating. > > Ralph McDiarmid, AScT > Compliance Engineering Group > Xantrex Technology Inc. -- Derek N. Walton L F Research Poplar Grove, IL 61065, USA ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. IEEE PSES Main Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions for use of the list server: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
