57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Corby,
Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big learning
curve. I use Just Basic, which is a FREE cut-down version of Liberty Basic.
While there are a few limitations, and some things you need to do aren't
entirely intuitive, it works very well and the serial comms support is
excellent. Not only will it do the higher speeds, it will also talk to any
COM port you like, including those USB serial adaptors which typically live
up at COM6 or higher.
What's more Just Basic works great with Win7. I've attached a screen-shot of
one of my programs which drives a serial DDS synthesizer (the FEI FE-56xx Rb
synth). Looks good and works great.
Regards,
Murray ZL1BPU
Murray we offered up the same thing for pretty much the same reasons.
Good to know I am in fine company. Hmmm Ham + free??? Any link?
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Murray Greenman denwood@orcon.net.nzwrote:
Corby,
Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big learning
curve. I use Just Basic, which is a FREE cut-down version of Liberty Basic.
While there are a few limitations, and some things you need to do aren't
entirely intuitive, it works very well and the serial comms support is
excellent. Not only will it do the higher speeds, it will also talk to any
COM port you like, including those USB serial adaptors which typically live
up at COM6 or higher.
What's more Just Basic works great with Win7. I've attached a screen-shot
of one of my programs which drives a serial DDS synthesizer (the FEI
FE-56xx Rb synth). Looks good and works great.
Regards,
Murray ZL1BPU
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
You know there is one other aspect of this question from Corby. How do I
say this. Age. If you are using the old basics then things like the latest
basic by different names are quite convoluted and distracting. They are
designed for mobile phone apps. You know those crazy modern apps that sell.
We time nuts need direct control of older equipment. So things like liberty
basic or powerbasic will get us what we want quicker.
I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far
sighted. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com wrote:
Murray we offered up the same thing for pretty much the same reasons.
Good to know I am in fine company. Hmmm Ham + free??? Any link?
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Murray Greenman denwood@orcon.net.nzwrote:
Corby,
Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big
learning curve. I use Just Basic, which is a FREE cut-down version of
Liberty Basic. While there are a few limitations, and some things you need
to do aren't entirely intuitive, it works very well and the serial comms
support is excellent. Not only will it do the higher speeds, it will also
talk to any COM port you like, including those USB serial adaptors which
typically live up at COM6 or higher.
What's more Just Basic works great with Win7. I've attached a screen-shot
of one of my programs which drives a serial DDS synthesizer (the FEI
FE-56xx Rb synth). Looks good and works great.
Regards,
Murray ZL1BPU
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards
initially.
What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred
it to be serial and galvanically isolated.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com
wrote:
I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far
sighted. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
David it was humor
Regards
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David davidwhess@gmail.com wrote:
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards
initially.
What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred
it to be serial and galvanically isolated.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com
wrote:
I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far
sighted. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Ah well, I missed it but only because I have seen other people make
the same suggestion seriously in the recent past.
Where is my box of 2102 DRAMs? I left it around here somewhere.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:15:32 -0400, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com
wrote:
David it was humor
Regards
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David davidwhess@gmail.com wrote:
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards
initially.
What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred
it to be serial and galvanically isolated.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com
wrote:
I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far
sighted. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
Hi
If they had done USB instead of HPIB / GPIB, a lot of the drivers would have
been "out of service" by the time Windows 95 came along. No chance at all of
them working under Windows 7.
For the complexity, it'd have been better if they used something more like
Ethernet. Except in 1968, you would have set up for something other than
TCP-IP. Anybody running a Token Ring network in the basement?
No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common
denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once
the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about
every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards
initially.
What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred
it to be serial and galvanically isolated.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com
wrote:
I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far
sighted. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common
denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once
the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about
every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches.
Basic serial has its merits, but it's regrettable that RS-232 came out
on top. RS-422 (or full-duplex RS-485, not much difference) would have
been a much better choice. Differential so it has good noise resistance,
and it doesn't use weird voltages (-12V? come on...)
It all looks the same from the software side though. Bytes in, bytes out.
-- m. tharp
Hi
Again, I'd say it's the lowest common denominator. Synchronous comm using
RS-232 levels on a DB-25 came before asynchronous comm. It's long dead.
Being first isn't always best. Same could be said of 125V / 60 ma current
loops. I suspect serial will easily outlive RS-232 levels though.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Michael Tharp
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:55 AM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common
denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once
the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about
every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches.
Basic serial has its merits, but it's regrettable that RS-232 came out
on top. RS-422 (or full-duplex RS-485, not much difference) would have
been a much better choice. Differential so it has good noise resistance,
and it doesn't use weird voltages (-12V? come on...)
It all looks the same from the software side though. Bytes in, bytes out.
-- m. tharp
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
Commodore computers in the longago dimdark past serialized the GPIB.
They started out with the GPIB as the disk drive and printer interface
from the get-go. I used a Commodore as a cheap controller when Hp GPIB
controllers cost a small fortune.
Don
David
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards
initially.
What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred
it to be serial and galvanically isolated.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com
wrote:
I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very
far
sighted. ;-)
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
--
"Neither the voice of authority nor the weight of reason and argument
are as significant as experiment, for thence comes quiet to the mind."
De Erroribus Medicorum, R. Bacon, 13th century.
"If you don't know what it is, don't poke it."
Ghost in the Shell
Dr. Don Latham AJ7LL
Six Mile Systems LLP
17850 Six Mile Road
POB 134
Huson, MT, 59846
VOX 406-626-4304
www.lightningforensics.com
www.sixmilesystems.com