); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
If you run a development system like Visual Basic 6.0, you can see the
controls that are available in an OCX file very easily. It does not tell you
what they do, but with any luck, it should not be too hard to figure out if
the
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
The last version of QuickBasic for DOS (v4.5) only supports 2 COM ports
(COM1, COM2).
I did have a version of VBDOS, but I have lost it a long time ago, so I
can't tell what it did.
Visual Basic will support at least 16 (I u
Thanks for the info. I will try disabling COM1 and 2 ands see what happens.
Bill K7NOM
John Miles wrote:
> There should certainly no problem using COM3 with Win98SE. If you aren't
> using your machine's normal serial ports for anything, you might try
> disabling them in the CMOS setup screen. T
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> One factor to remember about good ol' PCs is that not all of the
> timing problem is down to the RTC. A lot of timing errors are down to
> Interrupts. A busy PC can lose 100s of milliseconds a day as a result
> of Interrupt a
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
There should certainly no problem using COM3 with Win98SE. If you aren't
using your machine's normal serial ports for anything, you might try
disabling them in the CMOS setup screen. That may let the system assign the
Prologix
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:45:58 +
> From: "Dileep MG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [time-nuts] softmark-usb-gpib
> To: time-nuts@febo.com
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Bill,
> I next tried "EZGPIB" and it reports
> "No Prologix found"
I have had a similar feed back from a different W98 user before. It
seems that W98 is that different in lots of aspects from later Windows
versions that I fea
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
I believe that the later versions of the DOS BASIC compiler support more
than two COM ports. I'm not sure, but I believe that MS must have released
this old software for free use, as I have seen it posted on many
(non-pirate)
Well I bought a prologix GPIB device to use with my HP5370A to compare
clocks. I tried a QBasic program and, no surprise, QBasic couldn't find
the COM3.
So, I downloaded "Prologix GPIB Configuration" program and that finds
COM3 and
I can control my 5370. I next tried "EZGPIB" and it reports "No
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
You never said what your system hardware was, Intel has been making PCs for
several decades now.
With the newer systems there is so much dynamic throttling of components
that issues like this are bound to arise. Replacing the c
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
I looked at Vista some time ago, and decided that for all the hype, it
didn't give me any more than I really needed with my existing XP.
Now glad I didn't change!
Rob K
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
On 9/19/07, James Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I know that some on this list will say, "You nitwit, you should be another OS
> than M$ Vista." Such replies will not be helpful to me.)
Sadly, if you wish to have direct
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
On 9/19/07, Bill Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, this is way off topic, unless you consider the passage of time.
In terms of accuracy, for anything outside London, UK, BBC World News
tends to be high quality and bal
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Hi all,
Will someone be able to give me some inputs on using usb-gpib interface from
softmark?
Information regarding coding with the ocx file which comes with the board,
can be helpful.
I thank you for the help, in advance.
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
In a message dated 20/09/2007 12:28:40 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Nigel,
The ClockBlock is more suited to the main processor clock as it's only
specified down to a few hundred kilohertz. It would be O
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Hi Nigel,
The ClockBlock is more suited to the main processor clock as it's only
specified down to a few hundred kilohertz. It would be OK with a
post-scaler though.
Robert G8RPI.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTEC
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
One factor to remember about good ol' PCs is that not all of the timing
problem is down to the RTC. A lot of timing errors are down to Interrupts. A
busy PC can lose 100s of milliseconds a day as a result of Interrupt
activity.
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
In a message dated 20/09/2007 08:24:18 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Being a hardware kind of guy, my approach would be a little different.
Why not remove the 32.768kHz crystal and feed the existing RTC wit
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Neon John wrote:
> ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
> Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
>
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:48:51 -0500, "Bill Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
>> Errors-To:
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
You don't even have to remove the crystal, just clip on a wire
with a reasonably strong 32KHz signal and everything will lock
on.
-Chuck Harris
Robert Atkinson wrote:
> ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
> Errors-To: [EMAIL PR
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:48:51 -0500, "Bill Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
>Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
>
>Yes, this is way off topic, unless you consider the passage of time.
>
>Wh
); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RETRY
Hi,
Being a hardware kind of guy, my approach would be a little different.
Why not remove the 32.768kHz crystal and feed the existing RTC with
32.768kHz divided down from a decent oscillator?
Hey, I just thought, maybe there is
22 matches
Mail list logo
