Spam

On 1/27/2014 8:50 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 1/27/2014 6:28 PM, Paul wrote:
If you want to add a parallel port to the computer,
get one of these. This is what I use. It has a PCI Express
connector. It does more modes than a "USB to printer"
adapter would do. I run a JTAG programmer cable off it.
And Windows 8 is listed in the compatibility section
on this site. I got the adapter for less than the list
price.

http://www.startech.com/Cards-Adapte...PP-ECP~PEX1PLP



Paul

I like that thought thread. While I can still sync with my desktop
through the IR adapter, do you know if you can get a USB parallel port
adapter so I could use it with my laptop.
Sorry that should have been serial port not parallel

Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 1/27/2014 8:50 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 1/27/2014 6:28 PM, Paul wrote:
If you want to add a parallel port to the computer,
get one of these. This is what I use. It has a PCI Express
connector. It does more modes than a "USB to printer"
adapter would do. I run a JTAG programmer cable off it.
And Windows 8 is listed in the compatibility section
on this site. I got the adapter for less than the list
price.

http://www.startech.com/Cards-Adapte...PP-ECP~PEX1PLP




Paul

I like that thought thread. While I can still sync with my desktop
through the IR adapter, do you know if you can get a USB parallel port
adapter so I could use it with my laptop.
Sorry that should have been serial port not parallel

There are USB to RS232 ports. I have a couple here. One
goes to the RS232 port on my UPS (which has no USB). The other
used to go to my dialup modem (for when ADSL fails, and I
need to get to the status page of my ISP). And occasionally connects
to another computer, if I want to run a Linux console via
serial port (sorta like remote control).

They use FTDI chips inside. And show up as COM3 and COM4. UMC-201.
Windows 8 drivers are listed, but I haven't tested them. I used
to just get driver software from the FTDI site. (The software
has something to do with creating virtual com ports, whatever
that means.)

http://www.l-com.com/serial-converte...cable-10-meter

The other kind of adapter, is USB to TTL serial levels. It
consists of a cable with three wires sticking out the end.
The wires are TX, RX, GND. Such a design is used with some
kinds of cellphones. You then need to find a connector
for the phone, and fit the wires to it. That's basically
a FTDI design, without an RS232 level shifter connected
to it. It would be the above adapter, with a chip missing.
Another difference would be, no hardware flow control, and
operation at say, 9600 baud. When you have flow control,
you can run them a little faster. Perhaps 38400 when I was
doing a Linux console.

Paul

In ,
Paul typed:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
I like that thought thread. While I can still sync with my desktop
through the IR adapter, do you know if you can get a USB parallel
port adapter so I could use it with my laptop.

Sorry that should have been serial port not parallel

There are USB to RS232 ports. I have a couple here. One
goes to the RS232 port on my UPS (which has no USB). The other
used to go to my dialup modem (for when ADSL fails, and I
need to get to the status page of my ISP). And occasionally connects
to another computer, if I want to run a Linux console via
serial port (sorta like remote control).

They use FTDI chips inside. And show up as COM3 and COM4. UMC-201.
Windows 8 drivers are listed, but I haven't tested them. I used
to just get driver software from the FTDI site. (The software
has something to do with creating virtual com ports, whatever
that means.)

http://www.l-com.com/serial-converte...cable-10-meter

The other kind of adapter, is USB to TTL serial levels. It
consists of a cable with three wires sticking out the end.
The wires are TX, RX, GND. Such a design is used with some
kinds of cellphones. You then need to find a connector
for the phone, and fit the wires to it. That's basically
a FTDI design, without an RS232 level shifter connected
to it. It would be the above adapter, with a chip missing.
Another difference would be, no hardware flow control, and
operation at say, 9600 baud. When you have flow control,
you can run them a little faster. Perhaps 38400 when I was
doing a Linux console.

Yes, most RS232 to USB adapters will indeed work for syncing. Although
the problem is if the Windows 8 is the 64 bit version or not. As Palm
only supplied the 32 bit Windows driver for syncing and it doesn't work
with 64 bit Windows.

What most Palm users do to get around this problem is to use IR,
Bluetooth, or WiFi to sync with Windows. Although the Palm IIIxe doesn't
have or supports either Bluetooth or WiFi.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
Silver Slimer typed:
On 27/01/2014 11:15 AM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

IMO, OP's problem is that he has old hardware. The two devices he
refers to are both well over 10 years old.

What's the incentive for a manufacturer to update drivers for
hardware they no longer make?

Exactly.

There is none. If a person insists on holding onto hardware for a
decade, they should also consider using GNU/Linux rather than Windows.
Once the Linux kernel supports hardware, the support never goes away.
That's a gigantic advantage over Windows.

Really? I don't find this true of my Linux machines. For example any
Windows versions from 98 to Windows 8 still works with all of my Palm
computers while Linux does not. Although it is supposed too. I don't
find Linux very good at all. And the tens of thousand of hours I have
spent running Linux was really nothing but a waste of time.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 31/01/2014 4:11 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Silver Slimer typed:
On 27/01/2014 11:15 AM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

IMO, OP's problem is that he has old hardware. The two devices he
refers to are both well over 10 years old.

What's the incentive for a manufacturer to update drivers for
hardware they no longer make?

Exactly.

There is none. If a person insists on holding onto hardware for a
decade, they should also consider using GNU/Linux rather than Windows.
Once the Linux kernel supports hardware, the support never goes away.
That's a gigantic advantage over Windows.

Really? I don't find this true of my Linux machines. For example any
Windows versions from 98 to Windows 8 still works with all of my Palm
computers while Linux does not. Although it is supposed too. I don't
find Linux very good at all. And the tens of thousand of hours I have
spent running Linux was really nothing but a waste of time.

I feel the same way about my own time running the multitude of
distributions currently offered. However, it indeed has better support
for legacy hardware such as video cards. For Palm, I'm surprised to read
what you're reporting but I guess GNU/Linux advocates will state that
it's because Palm was never popular enough for them to support it.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 31/01/2014 4:11 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Silver Slimer typed:
On 27/01/2014 11:15 AM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

IMO, OP's problem is that he has old hardware. The two devices he
refers to are both well over 10 years old.

What's the incentive for a manufacturer to update drivers for
hardware they no longer make?

Exactly.

There is none. If a person insists on holding onto hardware for a
decade, they should also consider using GNU/Linux rather than Windows.
Once the Linux kernel supports hardware, the support never goes away.
That's a gigantic advantage over Windows.

Really? I don't find this true of my Linux machines. For example any
Windows versions from 98 to Windows 8 still works with all of my Palm
computers while Linux does not. Although it is supposed too. I don't
find Linux very good at all. And the tens of thousand of hours I have
spent running Linux was really nothing but a waste of time.

Say 20,000 hours. Hmmmm, that would be over two years. I suspect you're
a lying sack of ****.


I feel the same way about my own time running the multitude of
distributions currently offered. However, it indeed has better support
for legacy hardware such as video cards. For Palm, I'm surprised to read
what you're reporting but I guess GNU/Linux advocates will state that
it's because Palm was never popular enough for them to support it.


It's not Linux' fault that Palm won't port to Linux. Palm has to support
it, not Linux.

--
Alias

On 31/01/2014 1:27 PM, Alias wrote:

I feel the same way about my own time running the multitude of
distributions currently offered. However, it indeed has better support
for legacy hardware such as video cards. For Palm, I'm surprised to read
what you're reporting but I guess GNU/Linux advocates will state that
it's because Palm was never popular enough for them to support it.


It's not Linux' fault that Palm won't port to Linux. Palm has to support
it, not Linux.

True, but Palm gains nothing in producing drivers or software for an
operating system used by about 2% of the world's population and which
operates differently from one distribution to another. Unless you make
the software open-source and allow each distribution's developers to put
the software in a repository, there is no real way to make sure that
your software works on all GNU/Linux computers, especially ones which
aren't compatible with .DEB and .RPM.


--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 31/01/2014 1:27 PM, Alias wrote:

I feel the same way about my own time running the multitude of
distributions currently offered. However, it indeed has better support
for legacy hardware such as video cards. For Palm, I'm surprised to read
what you're reporting but I guess GNU/Linux advocates will state that
it's because Palm was never popular enough for them to support it.


It's not Linux' fault that Palm won't port to Linux. Palm has to support
it, not Linux.

True, but Palm gains nothing in producing drivers or software for an
operating system used by about 2% of the world's population and which
operates differently from one distribution to another. Unless you make
the software open-source and allow each distribution's developers to put
the software in a repository, there is no real way to make sure that
your software works on all GNU/Linux computers, especially ones which
aren't compatible with .DEB and .RPM.



Well, Palm's pretty much history so it really doesn't matter. I suspect
when MS takes everything to the cloud with their new CEO, who is a cloud
specialist, many more folks will go to Linux or Apple because they don't
really want a dumb terminal connecting to MS for everything including
your data.

--
Alias

Silver Slimer wrote on [Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:26:55 -0500]:
There is none. If a person insists on holding onto hardware for a
decade, they should also consider using GNU/Linux rather than Windows.
Once the Linux kernel supports hardware, the support never goes away.

They dropped 386 support...

On 31/01/2014 3:02 PM, Justin wrote:
Silver Slimer wrote on [Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:26:55 -0500]:
There is none. If a person insists on holding onto hardware for a
decade, they should also consider using GNU/Linux rather than Windows.
Once the Linux kernel supports hardware, the support never goes away.

They dropped 386 support...

ROFL.


--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

In ,
Silver Slimer typed:
On 31/01/2014 4:11 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Silver Slimer typed:
On 27/01/2014 11:15 AM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

IMO, OP's problem is that he has old hardware. The two devices he
refers to are both well over 10 years old.

What's the incentive for a manufacturer to update drivers for
hardware they no longer make?

Exactly.

There is none. If a person insists on holding onto hardware for a
decade, they should also consider using GNU/Linux rather than
Windows. Once the Linux kernel supports hardware, the support never
goes away. That's a gigantic advantage over Windows.

Really? I don't find this true of my Linux machines. For example any
Windows versions from 98 to Windows 8 still works with all of my Palm
computers while Linux does not. Although it is supposed too. I don't
find Linux very good at all. And the tens of thousand of hours I have
spent running Linux was really nothing but a waste of time.

I feel the same way about my own time running the multitude of
distributions currently offered. However, it indeed has better support
for legacy hardware such as video cards. For Palm, I'm surprised to
read what you're reporting but I guess GNU/Linux advocates will state
that it's because Palm was never popular enough for them to support
it.

Oh some support it like Ubuntu. But I never heard anybody that got it to
work yet.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2