Interfacing to parallel port dongle via USB adapter
Paul E. Schoen
works fine on my present (fairly old) computer, which has a native parallel
port. But newer computers, particularly laptops, do not have these legacy
ports and instead use USB to Parallel (or USB to Serial) converters. They
generally work well for printers, but I have heard that they do not work
for dongles. The usual solution is to obtain a USB dongle from the software
vendor (www.mentor.com), but they require the user to be on "maintenance"
in order to get a USB dongle, and they impose outrageous penalties and
payment of back (unused) support in order to be reinstated.
I have some experience with USB using the Microchip PIC18F2450 series, and
I have a demo board that works nicely as a USB to Serial converter. But I
want to see if it is possible to emulate a parallel port via USB that will
be transparent to the software that interfaces with the dongle. I think the
problem with the commercially available USB-Parallel adapters is that they
work only for printer functions, and not for individual bit-banging, which
is what I understand is done with the dongle.
The PADS dongle I have is a Globetrotter FLEXid (www.macrovision.com). This
is a newer dongle than the one used for another software package that
interfaces to software (TCC) sold by my associate to work with my product,
the Ortmaster. When I researched that dongle, the Rainbow Technologies
Sentinel Pro, it described its operation as using only one or two lines of
the parallel port to send and receive streams of data. If the new dongle
works the same way, it seems that it should be possible to emulate this via
USB.
Info on this device:
http://www.macrovision.com/webdocuments/PDF/FLEXidDongle_faq.pdf. But it
does not give details on the hardware.
Some information I found is http://www.woodmann.com/crackz/Dongles.htm, but
this is a hacking site, and that is not what I want (although I'm tempted).
I'll probably check the parallel port signals with a storage scope to see
what pins are active when I'm running the software with the dongle, and
then I'll have a little more information. But if anyone has done any work
in this area, I'd appreciate a jump start.
TIA,
Paul
Joerg
> I have software (PADS Layout) that requires a parallel port dongle, and it
> works fine on my present (fairly old) computer, which has a native parallel
> port. But newer computers, particularly laptops, do not have these legacy
> ports and instead use USB to Parallel (or USB to Serial) converters. They
> generally work well for printers, but I have heard that they do not work
> for dongles. The usual solution is to obtain a USB dongle from the software
> vendor (www.mentor.com), but they require the user to be on "maintenance"
> in order to get a USB dongle, and they impose outrageous penalties and
> payment of back (unused) support in order to be reinstated.
>
For me such business behavior would be a huge red flag.
> I have some experience with USB using the Microchip PIC18F2450 series, and
> I have a demo board that works nicely as a USB to Serial converter. But I
> want to see if it is possible to emulate a parallel port via USB that will
> be transparent to the software that interfaces with the dongle. I think the
> problem with the commercially available USB-Parallel adapters is that they
> work only for printer functions, and not for individual bit-banging, which
> is what I understand is done with the dongle.
>
> The PADS dongle I have is a Globetrotter FLEXid (www.macrovision.com). This
> is a newer dongle than the one used for another software package that
> interfaces to software (TCC) sold by my associate to work with my product,
> the Ortmaster. When I researched that dongle, the Rainbow Technologies
> Sentinel Pro, it described its operation as using only one or two lines of
> the parallel port to send and receive streams of data. If the new dongle
> works the same way, it seems that it should be possible to emulate this via
> USB.
>
> Info on this device:
> http://www.macrovision.com/webdocuments/PDF/FLEXidDongle_faq.pdf. But it
> does not give details on the hardware.
>
> Some information I found is http://www.woodmann.com/crackz/Dongles.htm, but
> this is a hacking site, and that is not what I want (although I'm tempted).
>
> I'll probably check the parallel port signals with a storage scope to see
> what pins are active when I'm running the software with the dongle, and
> then I'll have a little more information. But if anyone has done any work
> in this area, I'd appreciate a jump start.
>
Walmart has a USB-Parallel adapter that supposedly works bidirectionally:
http://www.toko.co.jp/products/en/filters_lc/fss_e.html
You could try it. Probably can be returned if it doesn't work. You'd
just have to roach on the D-Sub somehow.
--
Regards, Joerg
Paul Urbanus
Unfortunately, I suspect you won't have any success attaching a security
dongle to a USB-to-parallel adapter. USB carries data in 1 millisecond
frames, except for high speed where 125 microsecond frames are used. And
any USB-parallel adapter will not be high speed, so the slower 1
millisecond packet timing will be applicable.
The parallel port hardware is mapped into the PC I/O space, and access
is not constrained on any descrete time boundaries. So, if the dongle
driver writes something to the dongle hardware and expects a response in
tens to hundreds of microseconds, it will be impossible for the
USB-parallel adapter to respond.
Your best bet is to purchase a PCMCIA/PCCARD parallel port adapter.
Although they are a bit pricey ($100+ USD), they *should* be a faithful
emulation of the hardware port. You might have to change the
port/interrupt addresses to match the legacy addresses of 378h/278h/3BCh
for the driver software to see the port (depends on how old your dongle
software is). For a desktop machine, you should still be able to buy a
PCI parallel port card for $30-$40 USD.
If you can reverse engineer your hardware key (and you are a legitimate
owner of the software), then maybe you could write a kernel level driver
that would emulate the parallel port. I'm a hardware guy and I don't
know diddly about writing kernel level drivers - so this last suggestion
may not be realistic. I have done some looking at dongle communication,
and they much more sophisticated than the old Xilinx days of the 'AA',
'AB', and 'AC' hardware keys, which were easy to duplicate (only
requiring some CMOS counters and gates).
Urb
John Tserkezis
> I'll probably check the parallel port signals with a storage scope to see
> what pins are active when I'm running the software with the dongle, and
> then I'll have a little more information. But if anyone has done any work
> in this area, I'd appreciate a jump start.
It largely depends on how it "looks" at the port, but generally, it's not
going to work.
The legacy ports are mapped in a particular place in hardware. PCI printer
cards are mapped elsewhere.
USB/LPT adaptors are mapped via the USB host which is pretty much worse as
far as the software goes.
You cannot "emulate" software to look at a different hardware port than what
it asks for.
Think of it this way:
If you go directly to a physical street address and drop mail in, you pretty
much know where you're going. There is no flexibility.
If you go via the postal service (and obviously know how to use the postal
service because it's a different system than a street address), and they are
fully automated, you could in theory add another software layer that points to
an alternative place, so the user still does the same thing, the postal
service might do the same thing, but the extra software re-directs as required.
But if you're talking directly with a physical address, and they've moved
house, you're screwed.
There are a couple of things you can do. One is get VERY lucky and have a
laptop and desktop cradle that presents with a legacy port within the cradle.
Or, you can find an alternative laptop/desktop with a legacy port.
Or, you can vote with your wallet and NOT buy into those !@!#$%& dongles in
the first place.
I could vent quite comprehensively about this dongle issue now, but it would
serve no purpose, so I'll bottle it up and blow up later.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
Adrian Jansen
Personally I would request that the software vendor supports modern
hardware. If they wont, ditch it, and suffer the loss. You will come
out better in the long run.
--
Regards,
Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Design Engineer J & K Micro Systems
Microcomputer solutions for industrial control
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.
Jim Thompson
I seem to recall some software from years ago that captured the signal
and responses to/from a parallel port dongle, then emulated it...
object: to avoid having a dongle hanging off the back of your laptop.
Perhaps it still lives?
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Phil Hobbs
> Paul E. Schoen wrote:
>
>> I'll probably check the parallel port signals with a storage scope to
>> see what pins are active when I'm running the software with the
>> dongle, and then I'll have a little more information. But if anyone
>> has done any work in this area, I'd appreciate a jump start.
>
> It largely depends on how it "looks" at the port, but generally, it's
> not going to work.
>
> The legacy ports are mapped in a particular place in hardware. PCI
> printer cards are mapped elsewhere.
> USB/LPT adaptors are mapped via the USB host which is pretty much worse
> as far as the software goes.
>
> You cannot "emulate" software to look at a different hardware port than
> what it asks for.
Of course you can. It's been done since OS/2 1.3 in 1990.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
Joerg
>
> Personally I would request that the software vendor supports modern
> hardware. If they wont, ditch it, and suffer the loss. You will come
> out better in the long run.
>
They do. But in order to let you have that privilege they might make you
pay up all the years you skipped support contracts because you didn't
need them. One reason why I never bought software with a dongle. Many
other reasons as well, such as specialty printer not working anymore and
so on.
Rich Webb
>Your best bet is to purchase a PCMCIA/PCCARD parallel port adapter.
>Although they are a bit pricey ($100+ USD), they *should* be a faithful
>emulation of the hardware port. You might have to change the
>port/interrupt addresses to match the legacy addresses of 378h/278h/3BCh
>for the driver software to see the port (depends on how old your dongle
>software is). For a desktop machine, you should still be able to buy a
>PCI parallel port card for $30-$40 USD.
Just to add a datum point to the discussion, I have tried a PCMCIA
parallel port adapter (Quatech SPP-100, rev H) to drive a Needham's
device programmer. Short version: Okay with printers, didn't work to
drive the programmer.
This was a couple of years ago and the hardware, firmware, & drivers
may well have improved since then. Probably won't hurt to give one a
try, and, after all, a device programmer != a dongle.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Posts made through GoogleGroups are dropped and won't be seen.
rebel
USB.
The dongles I have examined use a "stimulus/response" exchange between the
dongle and the software package without activating the strobe line so the
outboard device (printer, whatever) does not "see" the exchange as it only
latches the byte data when the strobe is activated. By that means the dongle is
notionally invisible (or really transparent?) to the printer. (Sometimes you
can daisy-chain dongles, sometimes you can't).
Unless you can - as JT indicated - capture that exchange and somehow replicate
the response to the software then you are SOL. Without being USB-familiar at
the raw signal level I can't say it can't be done, but I'd be extremely
surprised if it can.
Possibly a parallel port PCI card might work. I produce hardware that
interfaces to parallel ports for bidirectional transfer, but I haven't yet
checked out how truly those cards emulate a real parallel port.
Joerg
> My experience with parallel port dongles suggests you don't have a show using
> USB.
>
> The dongles I have examined use a "stimulus/response" exchange between the
> dongle and the software package without activating the strobe line so the
> outboard device (printer, whatever) does not "see" the exchange as it only
> latches the byte data when the strobe is activated. By that means the dongle is
> notionally invisible (or really transparent?) to the printer. (Sometimes you
> can daisy-chain dongles, sometimes you can't).
>
Aha! What if Paul built a little go-between circuit that issues a strobe
whenever there is a change on any of the data lines? Or maybe he could
find out if this type dongle possibly uses only one or two data bits.
> Unless you can - as JT indicated - capture that exchange and somehow replicate
> the response to the software then you are SOL. Without being USB-familiar at
> the raw signal level I can't say it can't be done, but I'd be extremely
> surprised if it can.
>
> Possibly a parallel port PCI card might work. I produce hardware that
> interfaces to parallel ports for bidirectional transfer, but I haven't yet
> checked out how truly those cards emulate a real parallel port.
That's what TI told me when I asked them about how to run one of their
older JTAG controllers. They said that most USB converters don't work
but the parallel port PCI or PCMCIA card usually does.
John Tserkezis
>> You cannot "emulate" software to look at a different hardware port than what
>> it asks for.
> Sure you can.
I should have added "it depends".
If it goes via windows APIs to find the port, then yes, it's quite easy work
around.
If it looks directly at a particular hardware port, and there's nothing at
that physical hardware port, then short of hacking the software, you're NOT
going to 'fix' it.
> Save yourself the headaches and just get the hacked/cracked version (I
> never said that) of the app you have a legal license to use, or buy the
> software dongle to enable your app as is. Both legal avenues.
In some cases, the second is not an option (company not around anymore), but
the prior (for single personal use) is very viable. Though not so much if
it's within a larger corporation and they actually pay attention to legals.
John Tserkezis
>> You cannot "emulate" software to look at a different hardware port
>> than what it asks for.
> Of course you can. It's been done since OS/2 1.3 in 1990.
In this context, hardware dongles for copy protection, not going to happen.
There's a fair bit of bit-banging going on, and translating that via a
software interface that might not support it, AND expecting a meaningful
response to come back from the dongle translated across two very different
interfaces, I aint' holding my breath.
Regardless, it seems a very elaborate setup to run some software
encapsulated within an emulator, within your native OS is way over the top.
Might be easier and cheaper in the long run to not bother with all that BS
and just buy non-dongle encumbered software in the first place.
Paul E. Schoen
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:ap18v395of3ocl9mk...@4ax.com...
I think some of the link on the crackz site above are for this type of
software. The older dongles may have simply returned a fixed response for a
fixed stimulus, and so would be easy to identify and reproduce. But I think
the newer schemes use encryption, and the software sends a stimulus which
generates a response according to a codec algorithm that is known to the
sender, so it can check the response. And it would use a random number
generator for the stimulus, so you would need to monitor the exchanges many
times before you could build a table of stimulus/response pairs. But what I
read on the woodmann site indicated that the encryption scheme might be
able to be cracked with a relatively small number of exchanges.
Of course, a really sophisticated system might periodically change the
key's code, but I doubt that because the key will work on different
computers with the same encrypted license file data. In this case, it is
also set up to expire after a certain time, and you must request a new
license file to extend the software's usability for another several years
(at the descretion of the vendor). For PADS, those who are off maintenence
are granted 5 year licenses. But I worry if they get a new crop of
corporate weenies, or are bought out by some other company, or if they just
suddenly go out of business.
I would probably not purchase any software with such a licensing scheme,
but I have had this software since it was practically given to me by a
company that was switching to Protel, around 1992. Then it was still just
PADS, and not Innoveda and then Mentor. Each progressive buyout made things
worse, but new features and better software made it worthwhile to spend the
$500/year or so that the maintenance package cost then, and that was before
they added the stupid back support and 40% penalty for lapses. This has
been a constant source of rants on the PADS user's forum. I have their
2004sp2 version, and there is a cracked earlier version 5.x, which would
probably meet my needs. I think that version also used a different,
non-expiring license, but I'm not sure it will work on my newer key dongle,
which became necessary after I had problems using the older key on my newer
computer.
I tried to monitor the activity on LPT1 using PortMon, but it does not
register anything, which indicates that the software is doing direct
bit-banging. I have software I wrote myself (ORTRUN.EXE), that uses the
parallel port for data collection, and it also does not show this activity.
It does show "legitimate" calls to the port, such as when I tried the MSDOS
command "COPY Filename LPT1:".
AFAIK, all versions of Windows after Win 98 use a virtual machine to handle
direct port access, but I think it eventually allows pretty much direct
control over the port. But there must be a layer of software that
intercedes in some way. I have been able to run two instances of ORTRUN at
the same time (but maybe on Win98), which indicates there must be two
virtual machines, and my direct read/write to the I/O port must be handled
by some low-level software. I think I need to look at this software and see
if it can intercept the R/W to the port and convert that to USB
transactions, which can then be changed back to parallel port bit-banging
by the PIC circuit.
I don't know if timing is critical. Probably the software writes a stream
of serial data on one of the port pins, and then waits for a reasonable
period of time for a response. I would expect that the baud rate for this
communication would be fairly low, so that a simple software UART can be
implemented. This would likely use the internal timer tick, which is about
55 mSec, or 18.2 ticks per second. A UART clock usually uses at least two
clock cycles per bit, so you could communicate at 9 bits per second. A 64
bit key would take 7 seconds, which is plenty fast enough for this purpose.
If I try my storage scope, I should be able to see the fastest transitions
and see if this is the case. And it should not be too hard to build a
parallel port monitor that can record these communications. But the hard
part will be to make a driver that will enumerate the USB device as an LPT
port, and then perform all the required I/O as seen by the application.
Whew!
Paul
rebel
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>rebel wrote:
>> My experience with parallel port dongles suggests you don't have a show using
>> USB.
>>
>> The dongles I have examined use a "stimulus/response" exchange between the
>> dongle and the software package without activating the strobe line so the
>> outboard device (printer, whatever) does not "see" the exchange as it only
>> latches the byte data when the strobe is activated. By that means the dongle is
>> notionally invisible (or really transparent?) to the printer. (Sometimes you
>> can daisy-chain dongles, sometimes you can't).
>>
>
>Aha! What if Paul built a little go-between circuit that issues a strobe
>whenever there is a change on any of the data lines? Or maybe he could
>find out if this type dongle possibly uses only one or two data bits.
Certainly no biggie to capture the 8 I/O bits and the status/control bits of any
exchanges between the host and the dongle.
The next step, however, would only be "fun" if you live and breathe
reverse-engineering of data sequences. A whole truckload of data would likely
be sent to the dongle before a response is solicited, and when you see the
response you don't know how much of the preceding output was just padding (aka
obfuscating garbage) and how much was the key which the dongle is waiting for.
You also can't even be certain that the response is triggered by a byte value or
a handshake line (or a combination) in the immediate pre-response period - it
could be told to delay response by a certain number of bytes, and that could
also be variable.
The capture process needs to be independent of the "official" strobe on pin 1,
so a byte_value_change_detector would be required. A suitable comms analyser
would do most of that work, or a simple home-built interface tied to a PC would
certainly be able to capture the lot. BUT much existing software for these
purposes is strobe-dependent, so a little code-bashing would also be in order
unless the change detector latched the byte and generated a strobe pulse..
Joerg
Sounds like a major science project, IMHO not worth it. I'd switch to a
better CAD software. Mine does not need a dongle and I most certainly
would not have bought it if it did. To me a dongle has about the level
of professionalism as a circuit board with the part numbers filed off.
mrda...@gmail.com
> I have software (PADS Layout) that requires a parallel port dongle, and it
> works fine on my present (fairly old) computer, which has a native parallel
> port. But newer computers, particularly laptops, do not have these legacy
> ports and instead use USB to Parallel (or USB to Serial) converters. They
> generally work well for printers, but I have heard that they do not work
> for dongles. The usual solution is to obtain a USB dongle from the software
> vendor (www.mentor.com), but they require the user to be on "maintenance"
> in order to get a USB dongle, and they impose outrageous penalties and
> payment of back (unused) support in order to be reinstated.
Newer DESKTOP computers, to my amazement, often still have parallel
ports.
My department is upgrading computers this month - the lease is up for
our current computers - and the newer, 2GB HP machines have... a
parallel port! I expressed my amazement to the IT staff, and they
looked at me like I was on drugs...
True, to save space, newer laptops likely won't have them.
Any particular reason you can't maintain an older machine to run
"legacy" applications? Sounds cheaper.
Michael
Joerg
The bridge chips on main boards almost all support LPT. Sometimes there
is a pin header or at least the empty position for one. On my latest
Dell there ain't. The bridge chip supports LPT and all other legacy
stuff but they took LPT out of the layout. They even removed the 2nd
floppy support from the BIOS :-(
Harumph. Grumble.
Jim Thompson
So why did you buy Dell?
Joerg
Because they have been good to me and most of the other name brands
didn't have legacy ports either. Before the purchase I found out that
they use a particular Foxconn MoBo in there and that had all the header
positions. Turns out Foxconn made a slightly modified one for them,
taking all those out :-(
Another reason was because the Dell business section offered XP. Vista
is not acceptable to me. Anyhow, you can order this particular PC with
LPT if you wanted to. I guess then they stick a PCI card in there, which
I can always do later.
Jan Panteltje
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
<470av39e57db92a30...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>The bridge chips on main boards almost all support LPT. Sometimes there
>>is a pin header or at least the empty position for one. On my latest
>>Dell there ain't. The bridge chip supports LPT and all other legacy
>>stuff but they took LPT out of the layout. They even removed the 2nd
>>floppy support from the BIOS :-(
>>
>>Harumph. Grumble.
>
>So why did you buy Dell?
Dell came out in Germany as having by far the best support (if it is kaput) I found out
today (German user experiences with notebook service):
http://www.heise.de/ct/tv/artikel/105491
Asus came out the worst with recommendation they do something else for a while...
Jim Thompson
I don't buy "name brand" PC's. My local PC Club churns out anything I
want... cheaply. I also don't buy Intel, I buy AMD. AMD processors
run circles around Intel chips when it comes to simulators. I also
bought a bunch of batch of XP for future use... just in case I can't
get it, though it looks like demand will keep XP there, at least for
awhile.
Joerg
Dell's support is good but you have to be able to understand English
with a thick Indian accent. Not a huge problem for Americans but it can
become a challenge for others.
Just one example: A note inside the box and also the MoBo specs state a
dual-monitor setup but the mentioned adapter wasn't there. Called Dell,
they said that the adapter for that only exists for setups with a 2nd
graphics card. There would only be a splitter for displaying the same
image on two monitors but as a paid accessory. They then sent me that
splitter for free and despite me saying that this isn't at all urgent
they insisted on super-fast courier shipment. On the house ...
Joerg
My experience with wrench shop PCs isn't that great. And yeah, AMD chips
are good for math intense stuff but nowadays the processor isn't the
pacing item in a PC. This one has an Intel dual core and it's faster
than I'll ever need. Also, my real simulator is a DSO and a Weller :-)
Jim Thompson
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
I, and a number of lurkers here, have run benchmarks of simulators on
Intel vs AMD. AMD is generally 2X faster.
And, knock on wood, my "wrench shop" PC's outlast the steps in
technology. Actually all I've _ever_ had fail over the years is hard
drives.
Joerg
I have noticed it as well since the laptop I usually take on the road
has an AMD. OTOH my sims aren't anywhere close to the big ones you most
likely do a lot so processor horsepower isn't all that important. Plus I
use two PCs in the office so if one has to do lengthy sims I just use
the other for CAD or Word. That's where the little file server comes in
handy because I can access all docs from either PC.
> And, knock on wood, my "wrench shop" PC's outlast the steps in
> technology. Actually all I've _ever_ had fail over the years is hard
> drives.
>
Didn't you have a RAM reliability problem a while ago? As for technology
I often use PCs a decade or longer. Steps in technology are not always
forward steps. As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved" OS
developments ;-)
Michael A. Terrell
Joerg wrote:
>
> Another reason was because the Dell business section offered XP. Vista
> is not acceptable to me. Anyhow, you can order this particular PC with
> LPT if you wanted to. I guess then they stick a PCI card in there, which
> I can always do later.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
www.siig.com makes a nice PCI dual parallel port board. I used an
older version on the computers used at the work stations to program the
various VME boards for the Microdyne RBC and DCR models. We had a single
port in all the crappy Gateways that were passed down from the
secretaries and purchasing, but we needed two different ISP cables. A
few benches had a Needham's EMP20 EPROM programmer, as well. The extra
ports saved a half hour a day, per bench by not having to move the
computers and change cables. You could plug both cables into boards,
apply power and install firmware.
I found a SIIG card in a donated XP computer recently, and thought it
was kind of funny in these days of almost everything being USB, that the
computer would have three printer ports.
--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists
Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.
Jim Thompson
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
>
>> And, knock on wood, my "wrench shop" PC's outlast the steps in
>> technology. Actually all I've _ever_ had fail over the years is hard
>> drives.
>>
>
>Didn't you have a RAM reliability problem a while ago? As for technology
>I often use PCs a decade or longer. Steps in technology are not always
>forward steps. As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved" OS
>developments ;-)
Don't know quite why, but it was mixed size strips that was the
problem.
I was told it was OK to use mixed sizes, providing Strip1 matches
Strip2 and Strip3 matches Strip4. 'Tain't so :-(
Joerg
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:07:21 -0700, Joerg
> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> [snip]
>>> And, knock on wood, my "wrench shop" PC's outlast the steps in
>>> technology. Actually all I've _ever_ had fail over the years is hard
>>> drives.
>>>
>> Didn't you have a RAM reliability problem a while ago? As for technology
>> I often use PCs a decade or longer. Steps in technology are not always
>> forward steps. As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved" OS
>> developments ;-)
>
> Don't know quite why, but it was mixed size strips that was the
> problem.
>
> I was told it was OK to use mixed sizes, providing Strip1 matches
> Strip2 and Strip3 matches Strip4. 'Tain't so :-(
>
I've done mixed sizes in a Dell laptop once and it worked fine. A PC is
supposed to let you know when it doesn't like that. Maybe you should
have bought a brand name PC after all ...
Jim Thompson
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:07:21 -0700, Joerg
>> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> And, knock on wood, my "wrench shop" PC's outlast the steps in
>>>> technology. Actually all I've _ever_ had fail over the years is hard
>>>> drives.
>>>>
>>> Didn't you have a RAM reliability problem a while ago? As for technology
>>> I often use PCs a decade or longer. Steps in technology are not always
>>> forward steps. As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved" OS
>>> developments ;-)
>>
>> Don't know quite why, but it was mixed size strips that was the
>> problem.
>>
>> I was told it was OK to use mixed sizes, providing Strip1 matches
>> Strip2 and Strip3 matches Strip4. 'Tain't so :-(
>>
>
>I've done mixed sizes in a Dell laptop once and it worked fine. A PC is
>supposed to let you know when it doesn't like that. Maybe you should
>have bought a brand name PC after all ...
You are well-known for your cheapness. Want to compare what I paid
versus what you paid ?:-)
Joerg
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:34:02 GMT, Joerg
> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:07:21 -0700, Joerg
>>> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>> And, knock on wood, my "wrench shop" PC's outlast the steps in
>>>>> technology. Actually all I've _ever_ had fail over the years is hard
>>>>> drives.
>>>>>
>>>> Didn't you have a RAM reliability problem a while ago? As for technology
>>>> I often use PCs a decade or longer. Steps in technology are not always
>>>> forward steps. As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved" OS
>>>> developments ;-)
>>> Don't know quite why, but it was mixed size strips that was the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> I was told it was OK to use mixed sizes, providing Strip1 matches
>>> Strip2 and Strip3 matches Strip4. 'Tain't so :-(
>>>
>> I've done mixed sizes in a Dell laptop once and it worked fine. A PC is
>> supposed to let you know when it doesn't like that. Maybe you should
>> have bought a brand name PC after all ...
>
> You are well-known for your cheapness. Want to compare what I paid
> versus what you paid ?:-)
>
AFAIR the Dell desktop was around $550, with Dual-Core and 2GB RAM,
_with_ warranty, remote diagnostics and all that. Keyboard and mouse
came with it but sans monitor. The 24h helpline really does work.
I think nowadays they even have one with similar processor and less RAM
for $299 but that's probably from their consumer group. No idea what
level of support that would include.
Jim Thompson
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
You need "support" to _run_ a PC... from someone who can't speak
English ?:-) (I've called Dell "support" for my father. It's from
the Philippines... and the "English" is incomprehensible.)
My last AMD Athlon 64 (3400+) with dual-monitor video, 2GB RAM and
150GB HD was ~$600. And 1 year warranty.
_If_ I needed help, it's just down the street ;-)
Joerg
It was during configuration where I often have to do some weird stuff.
Like starting scans via a command that comes in on the LAN. Most PCs
initially do not like that.
The support was actually pretty good but the accent was definitely Hindi.
> My last AMD Athlon 64 (3400+) with dual-monitor video, 2GB RAM and
> 150GB HD was ~$600. And 1 year warranty.
>
> _If_ I needed help, it's just down the street ;-)
>
That can work very well if they have the know-how. But not at 10:00pm I
guess.
JeffM
>Steps in technology are not always forward steps.
>As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved"
>OS developments ;-)
Microsoft OS
There. Fixed that for you.
At the same time that M$ is trying to push mostly-unfinished crap,
you have to get out your machete to get thru all the glowing reviews
that follow the releases of OS X and Ubuntu versions.
...and WRT Dell (I note Jan Panteltje's post):
They are the closest thing I see to the Mom & Pop shops
when it comes to giving the customer what he wants.
(You've already mentioned the Ships-with-XP option.)
They also have several business Linux options
(software support thru 3rd parties)
and there is a pre-installed Ubuntu option for individuals.
Their Ubuntu rollout wasn't spectacular because of a plain vanilla
install
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested#20640119
--without even a simple script included/enabled
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested#20638599
...and, of course, all the bitching was due to *software patents*
and the things those screw up.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested#20639409
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested
The fact that Dell ships pre-installed Linux of *any* flavor,
however, means that all the hardware has Linux device drivers
so, if you don't like Dell's install or choice of distro,
you can just install *your* favorite (without rebooting 42 times).
I'm wondering what JT is going to do with all those copies of XP
when M$ decides to shut down their XP activation servers
to try to extort everyone yet again
and force purchases of the latest version of their crapware.
.
.
If you surf with JavaScript disabled,
just insert &no_d2=1 into any Slashdot URLs.
Joerg
> Joerg wrote:
>> Steps in technology are not always forward steps.
>> As evidenced in the latest, ahem, "new and improved"
>> OS developments ;-)
> ^^
> Microsoft OS
> There. Fixed that for you.
>
> At the same time that M$ is trying to push mostly-unfinished crap,
> you have to get out your machete to get thru all the glowing reviews
> that follow the releases of OS X and Ubuntu versions.
>
> ...and WRT Dell (I note Jan Panteltje's post):
> They are the closest thing I see to the Mom & Pop shops
> when it comes to giving the customer what he wants.
> (You've already mentioned the Ships-with-XP option.)
>
Yes, they have the feel of a mom&pop shop and I like that. Heck, they
even offer to remove the loboto-ware and nagware off of the PC.
> They also have several business Linux options
> (software support thru 3rd parties)
> and there is a pre-installed Ubuntu option for individuals.
> Their Ubuntu rollout wasn't spectacular because of a plain vanilla
> install
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested#20640119
> --without even a simple script included/enabled
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested#20638599
> ...and, of course, all the bitching was due to *software patents*
> and the things those screw up.
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested#20639409
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&threshold=5&mode=nested
>
> The fact that Dell ships pre-installed Linux of *any* flavor,
> however, means that all the hardware has Linux device drivers
> so, if you don't like Dell's install or choice of distro,
> you can just install *your* favorite (without rebooting 42 times).
>
> I'm wondering what JT is going to do with all those copies of XP
> when M$ decides to shut down their XP activation servers
> to try to extort everyone yet again
> and force purchases of the latest version of their crapware.
No idea what it is with those servers. I bought three PCs with XP so far
and fully configured them without any registration in Redmond. I just
keep the license stickers in the respective manila folders like usual.
My old rule is to configure PCs with the LAN cable unplugged. Always.
Oh, and no auto-updates or any of that. Except for anti-virus software,
of course, but that isn't from Microsoft.
Joerg
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:26:46 GMT, Joerg
> about a ten year period. For you not to know that really says a lot
> about your experiences.
>
Nope. Why then did OrCad SDT sell sans dongle? In Europe they sold with
dongle so while I was living there I bought it in the US. Very simple.
SPICE was sold without dongle. Same with all the beam field simulators
and so on. So, tell us, which software was there that someone you deem
"experienced" would have absolutely needed and where there was no
non-dongle alternative?
> The dongle was not about a lack of professionalism, idiot. It was
> about KEEPING things professional and keeping authentication where it
> belongs... somewhere besides within the software itself. To keep
> software theft to a minimum, that segment of the industry used dongles.
>
Right. And then the printer wouldn't work anymore or the whole stack of
dongles broke the D-Sub off. Seen it several times. Very professional
indeed. The worst one was where the stack cracked the first dongle in
line and the SW mfg balked at replacing it without forking over a major
wad of cash. Also very professional, ain't it?
> You're lucky it didn't catch on, or we might all have a USB dongle stick
> on our machines where everything from the OS to a text editor might need
> a chip added to the stick.
There are reasons why it diodn't catch on. Some them were outlined in
this here thread ;-)
John Tserkezis
>> Vista is not acceptable to me.
> You're a fucking retard. What are you going to do when that is all there
> is available?
Grow a brain, idiot. The computer industry does indeed extend past your
bedroom you know. There are greater implications that just running Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express.
Believe it or not, some people make entire companies out of writing
software, and more importantly they're NOT called Microsoft.
Since you simply don't understand, I'll try to explain. (listen carefully,
I'm not going to use crayon).
He (the OP) will do what everyone else will do. Downgrade to XP.
We're planning to stay with XP for the next few years (2-3 years perhaps?)
and we're absolutely guaranteed to see the arse end of commercially available
XP very, very soon (if not already).
We can legally run an earlier version of windows on boxes with Vista
licences here, and WILL do that, regardless of what M$ or you tell us what we
"should" have.
For the time being, for new boxes, we have limited choices (all are vista
except for a few exceptions), but get our suppliers to do the XP downgrade
where applicable for us.
We're buying lots of hardware over the year, so we have that sort of clout
(as opposed to joe average who buys one unit every few years). And where
that's not possible, we install the OS ourselves (though prefer not to due to
time constraints).
At the end of the day, it's more important to us that we have computers that
actually *work* rather than lots of very inefficient room heaters that make
wirring noises, and have sexy blue lights.
We have lots of software at this stage that does not work under vista, and
from the initial looks of things will never work, short of an upgrade.
So, until ALL the software we have has been tested to work under Vista, like
the OP: Vista is not acceptable to us either.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
John Tserkezis
> Generally, one can patch the program to avoid the dongle check and
> this is the easiest way.
Unfortunately, this is not a legal option. When you have dozens of licences
to handle, it makes it a little more difficult.
Presently for Autocad, (and other cad offerings) we have a licence server
that dishes out licences to users as they run the software up.
Short of upgrading our servers, (before we test it, and transfer everything
over first) that's going to continue to work.
Running hacked versions concurrently with documented legal paid licences
doesn't cut it, it's still technically piracy, and we simply can't afford to
wear the fines if it came to that.
The legals are much more grey when you are running software where the vendor
doesn't actually exist anymore (so there's no-one to chase you), but all of
that is upgraded as we go along anyway, so is still a moot point.
Joel Koltner
news:WG6Jj.19539$5K1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> To me a dongle has about the level of professionalism as a circuit board
> with the part numbers filed off.
Unfortunately the more expensive the software, the more expensive it is to
have a dongle (or a network license, which is essentially a "network card"
dongle).
ORCAD, PADS, Pulsonix, Microwave Office, HFSS, ADS, Ansoft Design... all
require a network license or dongle.
Joel Koltner
"JeffM" <jef...@email.com> wrote in message
news:65921d1f-eef2-4070...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> The fact that Dell ships pre-installed Linux of *any* flavor,
> however, means that all the hardware has Linux device drivers
I don't think that's always the case -- I recall reading some web page about
Lenovo notebooks having Linux options, and prominently on the desktop there
was a "readme.txt" file that listed all the functions that *weren't* supported
unix Linux. Of course it was small things -- stuff like the hard drive
auto-spin down when a drop is detected, extra "function" keys or annuciators
on the keyboard, etc., but it's still a little disappointing for the new Linux
user to find out that what they just bought hardware-wise isn't entirely
supported software-wise.
I have a (cheap) Acer 4520 with an Atheros WiFi card, and while the card
itself works fine, there's a hardware enable/disable (toggle) pushbutton that
does, indeed, enable and disable the radio in Linux but for the little LED
above the button that tells you the radio's power state is always extinguished
in Linux (whereas it does work in Vista).
Especially on laptops, it's also typically much harder to find and install all
the device drivers under Linux than it is under Windows... but I would agree
that Linux has improved a lot in this area in the past, say, 3-5 years.
---Joel
Joerg
Then I am lucky, getting away with non-dongle apps. Cadsoft-Eagle,
DesignCAD-3D, LTSpice (free...), some beam field SW, etc. None of them
needs dongles. Some do require registration and then a clandestine
distributor would have his tracks and all right there in the distributed
copy. I've never done that and don't use any hacked SW, and appreciate
that some vendors trust people.
Joel Koltner
news:ft302a$4q4$1...@aioe.org...
> Asus came out the worst with recommendation they do something else for a
> while...
Asus has historically primarily to "enthusiasts" who are used to doing their
own support anyway, and while Asus marketing would surely like to extend their
reach to a more mainstream market (especially with, e.g., the Eee palmtop PC),
they're definitely going to need to seriously invest in their support
infrastructure to pull it off.
JeffM
>>The fact that Dell ships pre-installed Linux of *any* flavor,
>>however, means that all the hardware has Linux device drivers
>>
>I don't think that's always the case -- I recall reading some web page
>about Lenovo notebooks having Linux options,
>and prominently on the desktop there was a "readme.txt" file
>Of course it was small things -- stuff like
>the hard drive auto-spin down when a drop is detected,
>extra "function" keys or annuciators on the keyboard, etc.,
>but it's still a little disappointing for the new Linux user
>to find out that what they just bought hardware-wise
>isn't entirely supported software-wise.
Those would be subroutines *within* the driver
--but my point was that the drivers do *exist*.
As you acknowledged, things have been improving in that regard.
I won't argue that there is a differential
between the kow-towing that Redmond gets
and the levels of quality that everyone else has to endure.
...and it should be shouted out loud IT'S NOT *LINUX'S* FAULT;
Patronize a hardware vendor WHO SUPPORTS YOU.
(I'm more in favor of mandated unbundling every day.)
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/09/0048247&threshold=5&mode=nested#20906793
The *smart* vendors have published specs
and/or opened the source code of their drivers
(especially noteworthy when those drivers are crappy)
and have gotten free labor from the driver hacker community
which can improve their quality and expand their potential market--
gratis.
.
.
If you surf with JavaScript disabled,
insert &no_d2=1 into the Slashdot URL.
Joerg
But at the end of the day people want or need a brand name laptop, with
a good warranty and from a company that is still going to be around in a
few years. That reduces the selection quite drastically.