Guest Franc Zabkar Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem On 29 Nov 2007 18:46:53 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > An anomaly I don't understand--under the Modems line in Device >Manager, this machine shows not only Standard Modem, but five other >"modems": parallel cable on LPT1 and LPT2, and serial cable on COM1, COM2 >and COM4. I don't know where all of these came from; ... I have exactly the same devices. In my case they are the result of installing Direct Cable Connection. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_cable_connection The respective registry entries are here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\Modem The DriverDesc settings are ... Dial-Up Networking Parallel Cable between 2 PCs Dial-Up Networking Serial Cable between 2 PCs >... the only actual >modem on this computer is the one on COM2, and there is no hardware COM4. Maybe COM4 existed before you disabled the onboard serial port in your BIOS setup ??? Its resources (I/O address and IRQ) may give you a clue as to its origin. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 29 Nov 2007 20:16:00 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >>Maybe COM4 existed before you disabled the onboard serial port in your >>BIOS setup ??? Its resources (I/O address and IRQ) may give you a clue >>as to its origin. > > No resources are shown for COM4. It appears only in Control >Panel/Modems Properties/Diagnostics, not under Device Manager (perhaps I >should look in Safe Mode...) You say you see no resources in DM, but if you select COM4 in Control Panel/Modems Properties/Diagnostics, and then choose More Info, do you see any Interrupt, Address, and UART info? Is COM4 using a non-standard Driver? Does Windows HyperTerminal allow you to set up a "Direct to COM4" session? Did you ever experiment with a USB modem ??? You might like to try reposting your question to comp.dcom.modems. The group is relatively quiet these days, but a lot of modem gurus used to hang out there. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >On 29 Nov 2007 20:16:00 GMT, Donald G. Davis ><dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >>>Maybe COM4 existed before you disabled the onboard serial port in your >>>BIOS setup ??? Its resources (I/O address and IRQ) may give you a clue >>>as to its origin. >> >> No resources are shown for COM4. It appears only in Control >>Panel/Modems Properties/Diagnostics, not under Device Manager (perhaps I >>should look in Safe Mode...) >You say you see no resources in DM, but if you select COM4 in Control >Panel/Modems Properties/Diagnostics, and then choose More Info, do you >see any Interrupt, Address, and UART info? Is COM4 using a >non-standard Driver? Interrupt: 0; Address: 0; Driver: COMM.DRV (same as the other COM ports). >Does Windows HyperTerminal allow you to set up a "Direct to COM4" >session? I don't know how to attempt that. >Did you ever experiment with a USB modem ??? No, I don't have one. Would available USB DOS drivers operate a modem? >You might like to try reposting your question to comp.dcom.modems. The >group is relatively quiet these days, but a lot of modem gurus used to >hang out there. Good suggestion. I will try that. -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 8, 2007 Posted December 8, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 04 Dec 2007 19:11:20 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: > >>On 29 Nov 2007 20:16:00 GMT, Donald G. Davis >><dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >>>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: > >>>>Maybe COM4 existed before you disabled the onboard serial port in your >>>>BIOS setup ??? Its resources (I/O address and IRQ) may give you a clue >>>>as to its origin. >>> >>> No resources are shown for COM4. It appears only in Control >>>Panel/Modems Properties/Diagnostics, not under Device Manager (perhaps I >>>should look in Safe Mode...) > >>You say you see no resources in DM, but if you select COM4 in Control >>Panel/Modems Properties/Diagnostics, and then choose More Info, do you >>see any Interrupt, Address, and UART info? Is COM4 using a >>non-standard Driver? > > Interrupt: 0; Address: 0; Driver: COMM.DRV (same as the other COM >ports). > >>Does Windows HyperTerminal allow you to set up a "Direct to COM4" >>session? > > I don't know how to attempt that. It doesn't look like there is any point now. Anyway, just launch HyperTerminal and select "Direct to COM4" from the "Connect using" drop down box. Then send AT commands to the modem as you would in Qmodem. BTW, you can install HyperTerminal from your Win98 CD by going to Control Panel and selecting Add/Remove Programs -> Windows Setup -> Communications -> Details. This was Hilgraeve's free upgrade: http://web.archive.org/web/20060805055029/http://www.hilgraeve.com/htpe/htpe63.exe >>Did you ever experiment with a USB modem ??? > > No, I don't have one. Would available USB DOS drivers operate a >modem? I've never seen anything along those lines. The reason I asked the question was in case this would account for the "ghosted" (?) COM port. >>You might like to try reposting your question to comp.dcom.modems. The >>group is relatively quiet these days, but a lot of modem gurus used to >>hang out there. > > Good suggestion. I will try that. I see you didn't get much of a response there. :-( - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >>>You might like to try reposting your question to comp.dcom.modems. The >>>group is relatively quiet these days, but a lot of modem gurus used to >>>hang out there. >> >> Good suggestion. I will try that. >I see you didn't get much of a response there. :-( True. I was taken aback to see that comp.dcom.modems is so moribund. When I last read it several years ago, it was quite busy. I must be one of the only people still using dialup modems at all. -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest MEB Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem "Donald G. Davis" <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> wrote in message news:1197177118.637844@irys.nyx.net... | Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: | | >>>You might like to try reposting your question to comp.dcom.modems. The | >>>group is relatively quiet these days, but a lot of modem gurus used to | >>>hang out there. | >> | >> Good suggestion. I will try that. | | >I see you didn't get much of a response there. :-( | | True. I was taken aback to see that comp.dcom.modems is so | moribund. When I last read it several years ago, it was quite busy. I | must be one of the only people still using dialup modems at all. | -- | --Donald Davis | | [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.] Hey Guys, though I have monitored this, a couple of questions: Franc you have installed the 4.6 version, but the request to Don was unanswered concerning what version he has installed [unless I missed it]. Also, configuration questions had been placed, which also remained unanswered. I am willing to install one of my versions, to participate, but I would like it to be Don's version if possible. Franc, I'm sure you checked around [you always do] so are there any potentials which held special interest? IT does seem that the blank port brings issue reminiscent of USR modems {WinModems] ... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> writes: > Hey Guys, though I have monitored this, a couple of questions: > Franc you have installed the 4.6 version, but the request to Don was >unanswered concerning what version he has installed [unless I missed it]. Yes, I had posted my terminal program version: Qmodem TD 4.6. That is why Franc installed that version. > Also, configuration questions had been placed, which also remained >unanswered. I am willing to install one of my versions, to participate, but >I would like it to be Don's version if possible. I'm not sure whether I failed to answer any configuration questions. > Franc, I'm sure you checked around [you always do] so are there any >potentials which held special interest? IT does seem that the blank port >brings issue reminiscent of USR modems {WinModems] ... It seems to me that the "port already open" problem must center around differing modem/serial port hardware, since using the same terminal program, with the same configuration, will, on exiting the terminal program, release the port to Windows on one machine, but not on another with different hardware. I am becoming increasingly doubtful that software tweaks within the DOS box will solve the problem (though still willing to try suggestions). What I would like at this stage--if such a thing exists--is a method within Windows that can forcibly free the port from the DOS session's control, without having to close that session. -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest MEB Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem "Donald G. Davis" <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> wrote in message news:1197215304.601180@irys.nyx.net... | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> writes: | | > Hey Guys, though I have monitored this, a couple of questions: | | > Franc you have installed the 4.6 version, but the request to Don was | >unanswered concerning what version he has installed [unless I missed it]. | | Yes, I had posted my terminal program version: Qmodem TD 4.6. | That is why Franc installed that version. | | > Also, configuration questions had been placed, which also remained | >unanswered. I am willing to install one of my versions, to participate, but | >I would like it to be Don's version if possible. | | I'm not sure whether I failed to answer any configuration | questions. Okay, here's the prior questions [11-19-2007]: Ah, okay, but you did that in the terminal Window which will NOT release the modem until the terminal Window is closed. So try modifying the Hangup string to see if that helps. Okay, to kill off other potentials: So what did you choose for your Properties and Advanced Settings in the DOS Box batch files links {you put them in StartUp right?}? Do you have Prevent MSDOS based programs from Detecting Windows checked [works both ways for many Dos programs]? Do you have everything unchecked in Misc except perhaps Mouse Exclusive and Fast Pasting? How about Memory and Screen settings? And, for reference, is the Com Port the same in DOS as it is in Windows [Port, address, and IRQ]? | | > Franc, I'm sure you checked around [you always do] so are there any | >potentials which held special interest? IT does seem that the blank port | >brings issue reminiscent of USR modems {WinModems] ... | | It seems to me that the "port already open" problem must center | around differing modem/serial port hardware, since using the same terminal | program, with the same configuration, will, on exiting the terminal | program, release the port to Windows on one machine, but not on another | with different hardware. I am becoming increasingly doubtful that | software tweaks within the DOS box will solve the problem (though still | willing to try suggestions). What I would like at this stage--if such a | thing exists--is a method within Windows that can forcibly free the port | from the DOS session's control, without having to close that session. | -- | --Donald Davis | | [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.] Additional questions would now be: You consistently state *terminal window* so how and why is it, that you are attempting to use QModem in a fashion which apparently REQUIRES you to use the terminal and leave that window open, and not using host, or the other aspects of the program which may free the port when closed [though leaving the DOS box open]? Another: Why are you using a DOS QModem, when QModem was produced in Windows versions to negate issues such as this? And one which you may or may not be able to answer: What were the make and models of those internal modems you previously used? -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 09 Dec 2007 15:48:24 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >What I would like at this stage--if such a >thing exists--is a method within Windows that can forcibly free the port >from the DOS session's control, without having to close that session. I found the following article. It states that "many hacks have been produced for I/O port access under Windows 95 and 98 such as .DLL libraries", but doesn't elaborate. FWIW, in Windows NT/2K/XP one possible solution involves AllowIO and PortTalk. PortTalk - A Windows NT I/O Port Device Driver: http://www.beyondlogic.org/porttalk/porttalk.htm ==================================================================== "A problem that plagues Windows NT/2000 and Windows XP, is it's strict control over I/O ports. Unlike Windows 95 & 98, Windows NT/2000/XP will cause an exception (Privileged Instruction) if an attempt is made to access a port that you are not privileged to talk too. Actually it's not Windows NT that does this, but any 386 or higher processor running in protected mode. Accessing I/O Ports in protected mode is governed by two events, The I/O privilege level (IOPL) in the EFLAGS register and the I/O permission bit map of a Task State Segment (TSS). Under Windows NT, there are only two I/O privilege levels used, level 0 & level 3. Usermode programs will run in privilege level 3, while device drivers and the kernel will run in privilege level 0, commonly referred to as ring 0. This allows the trusted operating system and drivers running in kernel mode to access the ports, while preventing less trusted usermode processes from touching the I/O ports and causing conflicts. All usermode programs should talk to a device driver which arbitrates access." "PortTalk can be used in conjunction with Allowio to make existing programs that access the I/O ports work under Windows NT/2000/XP. As you already know, any 32bit program will cause a Privileged Instruction Exception. Many hacks have been produced for I/O port access under Windows 95 and 98 such as .DLL libraries. Should you need to run such a program under Windows NT, an exception will occur. Try PortTalk." ==================================================================== - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:20:30 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: > Hey Guys, though I have monitored this, a couple of questions: > > Franc you have installed the 4.6 version, but the request to Don was >unanswered concerning what version he has installed [unless I missed it]. The most common version that turned up in my searches was v4.5, but according to the author "version 4.6 contains only cosmetic fixes to correct spelling and contact information for Mustang Software Inc. It is otherwise identical to v4.52". > Also, configuration questions had been placed, which also remained >unanswered. I am willing to install one of my versions, to participate, but >I would like it to be Don's version if possible. I'd like to confirm beyond doubt whether the internal modem is "hard", ie controller based, or "soft" or controllerless. To this end I would like to see the ATIn responses, and/or the chip part numbers. I can't see how a hard internal modem would behave any differently to an external serial modem. At least that's what my testing suggests. > Franc, I'm sure you checked around [you always do] so are there any >potentials which held special interest? IT does seem that the blank port >brings issue reminiscent of USR modems {WinModems] ... Unfortunately I don't have much personal experience with winmodems, so I can't provide any test results. AFAIK USR modems (both controllerless and controllered) come with drivers (eg turbovcd.vxd) that provide DOS box support in Windows. I'm at a loss to explain the blank port, though. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest MEB Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:fkjol39tcts3ka7v1qpd8d5h7p9ikdmdn9@4ax.com... | On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:20:30 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> | put finger to keyboard and composed: | | | > Hey Guys, though I have monitored this, a couple of questions: | > | > Franc you have installed the 4.6 version, but the request to Don was | >unanswered concerning what version he has installed [unless I missed it]. | | The most common version that turned up in my searches was v4.5, but | according to the author "version 4.6 contains only cosmetic fixes to | correct spelling and contact information for Mustang Software Inc. It | is otherwise identical to v4.52". Okay, I suppose I should look through my old CDROMS and floppies to see what I have for DOS. | | > Also, configuration questions had been placed, which also remained | >unanswered. I am willing to install one of my versions, to participate, but | >I would like it to be Don's version if possible. | | I'd like to confirm beyond doubt whether the internal modem is "hard", | ie controller based, or "soft" or controllerless. To this end I would | like to see the ATIn responses, and/or the chip part numbers. I can't | see how a hard internal modem would behave any differently to an | external serial modem. At least that's what my testing suggests. That's essentially what I have questioned as well. There are/were some WINMODEM style external modems,, call them dumb if you wish, however, I don't recall his being one,,, have you checked? | | > Franc, I'm sure you checked around [you always do] so are there any | >potentials which held special interest? IT does seem that the blank port | >brings issue reminiscent of USR modems {WinModems] ... | | Unfortunately I don't have much personal experience with winmodems, so | I can't provide any test results. | | AFAIK USR modems (both controllerless and controllered) come with | drivers (eg turbovcd.vxd) that provide DOS box support in Windows. I'm | at a loss to explain the blank port, though. | | - Franc Zabkar | -- | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. Hopefully, the previous modems may help to provide a clue... I have had several issues related to improperly uninstalled modems, which corrupted other modems use, or which constantly popped-up in Device Manager and registry, and of course the ghosts in Device Manager seen in Safe Mode.. Occasionally, as USR and others re-assign ports, when improperly removed, the supposed port is still being re-assigned even if there is nothing there, or even if it is now claimed by another port or modem. Obviously, the new port or modem thinks its where it should be, as there is no way for it to know its port is actually somewhere else. Another issue, is when and how did he configure QMODEM. Was it done in pure DOS mode, then the potential ports assignments, IRQ and address may not be the same as in Windows. IT would appear that two distinct usage's would conflict, were this being done. Then there are also the modem drivers used in DOS QMODEM to take under consideration, with no knowledge of Windows. As far as they know, as long as they are running, nothing else SHOULD have control, its supposedly DOS after all not a multi-tasking environment where other applications may NEED something already claimed. An old tool used to test, like Modem Doctor [Windows version], would at times fail when confronted with WinModems [and other modems] and re-assigned ports, or when using DOS Modem Doctor under Windows. The ports just weren't where they should be, only the modem driver/application knew.. like com1, Irq 5 or 9, address {some non-standard available address}, or com4 is now com1, or [you get the picture]. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >On 09 Dec 2007 15:48:24 GMT, Donald G. Davis ><dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >>What I would like at this stage--if such a >>thing exists--is a method within Windows that can forcibly free the port >>from the DOS session's control, without having to close that session. >I found the following article. It states that "many hacks have been >produced for I/O port access under Windows 95 and 98 such as .DLL >libraries", but doesn't elaborate. FWIW, in Windows NT/2K/XP one >possible solution involves AllowIO and PortTalk. >PortTalk - A Windows NT I/O Port Device Driver: >http://www.beyondlogic.org/porttalk/porttalk.htm I'd seen reference to PortTalk before, but since it's for WinNT/2K/XP, will it even run under Win98, and if it does, is its purpose relevant to the present issue? -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:20:30 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> >put finger to keyboard and composed: >> Hey Guys, though I have monitored this, a couple of questions: >> >> Franc you have installed the 4.6 version, but the request to Don was >>unanswered concerning what version he has installed [unless I missed it]. >The most common version that turned up in my searches was v4.5, but >according to the author "version 4.6 contains only cosmetic fixes to >correct spelling and contact information for Mustang Software Inc. It >is otherwise identical to v4.52". Since the same problem occurs when I use other DOS serial-port programs (such as CTS) on the problem machine, I doubt that the version of Qmodem is important in any case. >> Also, configuration questions had been placed, which also remained >>unanswered. I am willing to install one of my versions, to participate, but >>I would like it to be Don's version if possible. >I'd like to confirm beyond doubt whether the internal modem is "hard", >ie controller based, or "soft" or controllerless. To this end I would >like to see the ATIn responses, and/or the chip part numbers. I can't >see how a hard internal modem would behave any differently to an >external serial modem. At least that's what my testing suggests. The chip part numbers would require disassembling the computer. I can see the ATIn responses in the Windows diagnostic panel, but it doesn't seem to work when I try to select them for pasting. I can copy them manually for the next message if you really think it's useful. However, I have no doubt that this ISA internal modem is controller-based, since it works fine under pure DOS (before Win98 is started). I wonder whether the relevant difference could be that the serial port hardware in the ISA modem is contained within the modem itself, whereas with the external serial modem, the port hardware is in the motherboard serial port. Is the circuitry entirely equivalent? Would programs using the external modem do exactly the same things to the hardware in the two cases? -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest MEB Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Okay, I located some of the old DOS QModems, however, they are on 51/4 disks [12 disks] and now I have to locate an old drive to install, to see if the disks are still viable [apparently I never made a CDROM or disk images for the DOS Qmodems]. I'm also, likely, going to need to locate an old backup program I used during that time period, called Point & Shoot, unless I was careful enough to included it on one of the disks. Additionally, my old backup tapes [from around a viable time period] showing QModem, are regretfully worthless/corrupted. Still several dozen CD-ROMs to go through, so maybe I can still find a backup or zip for QModem DOS. Just thought I'd let you guys know... -- MEB ________
Guest MEB Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Well, a final update. Apparently I never had the plain QMODEM [or never saved the disks, likely gave it away if I had it], all versions I have are PRO versions, from 1.50 [DOS - couple of updates/versions], to 16bit [Win3.* - looks like two versions], to 32bit [9X - three versions/updates I think]. It was interesting though, to find some of the old BBS software [Major, White, KBBS, and some others] scattered on the various 31/2, 51/4, and CDROM disks. Sorry, thought I might have been able to help. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 10 Dec 2007 05:05:12 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: > >>On 09 Dec 2007 15:48:24 GMT, Donald G. Davis >><dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >>>What I would like at this stage--if such a >>>thing exists--is a method within Windows that can forcibly free the port >>>from the DOS session's control, without having to close that session. > >>I found the following article. It states that "many hacks have been >>produced for I/O port access under Windows 95 and 98 such as .DLL >>libraries", but doesn't elaborate. FWIW, in Windows NT/2K/XP one >>possible solution involves AllowIO and PortTalk. > >>PortTalk - A Windows NT I/O Port Device Driver: >>http://www.beyondlogic.org/porttalk/porttalk.htm > > I'd seen reference to PortTalk before, but since it's for >WinNT/2K/XP, will it even run under Win98, and if it does, is its purpose >relevant to the present issue? Agreed, PortTalk is not applicable for Win9x, but I found the article useful in that it describes how IO ports are protected. In fact it made me curious about the various drivers. If you check the Driver File Details for the COM ports in Device Manager, the respective files are serial.vxd, serialui.dll, and vmm32.vxd (vcomm.vxd). However, if you check the Driver in the Diagnostics tab of Control Panel -> Modems, then you see comm.drv. FWIW I peeked inside this file and found the following text string: "The LPT@ port is currently assigned to a DOS application. Do you want to reassign the port to Windows?" - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 10 Dec 2007 05:18:20 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >However, I have no doubt that this ISA internal modem is controller-based, >since it works fine under pure DOS (before Win98 is started). Yes, it looks yours is definitely controller-based. I guess I was clutching at straws. > I wonder whether the relevant difference could be that the serial >port hardware in the ISA modem is contained within the modem itself, >whereas with the external serial modem, the port hardware is in the >motherboard serial port. Is the circuitry entirely equivalent? Would >programs using the external modem do exactly the same things to the >hardware in the two cases? I think its just a matter of integration. Just because the UART chip isn't discrete doesn't mean that it is not identical from a hardware standpoint. If you can read and write to the UART registers in real DOS mode, then I can't see how Windows can tell the difference. Just look at your motherboard chipset. It consists of a southbridge and a northbridge. The former has a whole bunch of integrated I/O, including the UARTs for the COM ports. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> writes: > Well, a final update. Apparently I never had the plain QMODEM [or never >saved the disks, likely gave it away if I had it], all versions I have are >PRO versions, from 1.50 [DOS - couple of updates/versions], to 16bit >[Win3.* - looks like two versions], to 32bit [9X - three versions/updates I >think]. It was interesting though, to find some of the old BBS software >[Major, White, KBBS, and some others] scattered on the various 31/2, 51/4, >and CDROM disks. > Sorry, thought I might have been able to help. Thank you for all the time you've put in on it, in any case. -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest Donald G. Davis Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> writes: >If you check the Driver File Details for the COM ports in Device >Manager, the respective files are serial.vxd, serialui.dll, and >vmm32.vxd (vcomm.vxd). However, if you check the Driver in the >Diagnostics tab of Control Panel -> Modems, then you see comm.drv. >FWIW I peeked inside this file and found the following text string: >"The LPT@ port is currently assigned to a DOS application. Do you want >to reassign the port to Windows?" That's just what I wish it would offer for the COM ports. This message suggests that there is such a thing as a parallel-port modem. I'd never heard of such a beast before, but a quick Google check shows that they do exist. -- --Donald Davis [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.]
Guest MEB Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem "Donald G. Davis" <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> wrote in message news:1197423729.979068@irys.nyx.net... | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> writes: | | > Well, a final update. Apparently I never had the plain QMODEM [or never | >saved the disks, likely gave it away if I had it], all versions I have are | >PRO versions, from 1.50 [DOS - couple of updates/versions], to 16bit | >[Win3.* - looks like two versions], to 32bit [9X - three versions/updates I | >think]. It was interesting though, to find some of the old BBS software | >[Major, White, KBBS, and some others] scattered on the various 31/2, 51/4, | >and CDROM disks. | | > Sorry, thought I might have been able to help. | | Thank you for all the time you've put in on it, in any case. | -- | --Donald Davis | | [To respond by e-mail, remove "blackhole." from the address.] Not a problem, it past some time, just wish I would have had something viable. Perhaps you can locate one of the QMPRO Windows versions... I am still running through some old DOS port progs [since you indicated that], but so far nothing of any value. Good luck. -- MEB ________
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 11 Dec 2007 03:53:45 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > I also have the similar DOS terminal program Telix, which I tried >this morning on the problem computer with the external Diamond Supra >modem. It also caused the "port already open" error. Now that I have >seen the same behavior with Qmodem, CTS, and Telix, I'd be very surprised >if a change in the version of Qmodem would have any different result; it >seems highly probable that using *any* program that accesses the modem in >a DOS window will leave the port open on that system. (Next I'll check >what happens after I simply echo an AT command to COM1 on it.) I tried reconfiguring Qmodem so that it used COM8 rather than COM2. I achieved this by interchanging the IRQs and IO port addresses. I closed QModem and exited the DOS window after making the changes. However I still encountered a "port already open" error in Windows on COM2 after relaunching Qmodem on COM8. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest MEB Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem I'll warn this is a long winded post, but to clarify issues in my own mind,, feel free to blast the heck out of it ... Okay, I've checked through the tools and apps I have locally, as expected nothing seems to address the sharing being attempted. From the beginnings of the discussion, the idea of using a DOS box for this type of activity seemed to me to be futile. I appreciated though, that perhaps there might be or have been a way to accomplish the task. Having now run through many of my old DOS programs, the issue became a "bug", something that just didn't seem right. So I have re-thought how things like this were accomplished IN DOS. To perform this function, sharing/multi tasking, one needed an application which created its own environment, and therefore could, within its self, assign and release the devices under its control. When I again ran across the old BBS programs, I remembered how these things were accomplished. To understand this, one must understand that these DOS programs were some of the earliest DOS programs which COULD multi-task, multi-assign, re-assign *on the fly*, provide multiple access points, and multiple running applications, while controlling the devices they were using. The answer lay within the BBS application - it was the master application which needed to do such releases, re-assignments, networking, sharing, etc. External applications could be called while running the BBS, but only if either BBS aware or not in conflict with the master program's control. One could *shell* to pure DOS and use some of its limited functions, but those functions, even then, were not *device sharing* aware. It was the BBS which need to know what was occurring, and ALLOW it to occur. The similarities to what Windows supplies generally, and this port sharing issue seem obvious. For this issue, the master application - Windows - must be the one which allows the secondary program - QMODEM - to use its claimed ports. My attempting to find a DOS program to FORCE Windows acceptance is doomed to the same failure which occurred in the old BBS days. The best I could hope for would be to attempt to find an application to HIDE the other application [a Windows aware shell to run the *sharing ignorant* application in] from Windows, but even there, unless Windows releases its control, or knows of the attempted sharing, it will likely fail just as it would when running these BBSs in those long passed days. Now here's the kicker, back then we would create a script to create a *shell* which the BBS used and controlled, but ALLOWED the application to run WITHIN the master application. It interfaced {if you will} with the BBS software, and allowed that software to use some already claimed function by temporarily freeing what was necessary, yet could be reclaimed and was still controlled by the BBS software. This is the same basic functionality and need that is seen in Windows, be it 9X or one of the NTs, or even one of the servers. That's what the DOS BBS software did. So unless I'm completely lost here [which may be the case] to achieve this *sharing* one needs to find some Windows aware *shell application* in which to run DOS QMODEM, or address the issue via VBS, Windows Scripting, or some other Windows tweak or modification, just as we had to do when running those BBSs. I seem to remember, that in the early NTs to achieve these things, this was also done. NOW, the somewhat strange issue, is that you state that this sharing worked before with your prior internal modems. The only things that I can think of for why this previously worked, is that those were Winmodems [completely controlled by Windows, hence Windows was always aware and in control] and because the external modem is smart but using a Windows controlled comm port. Hence, both the modem through QModem AND Windows think they control the port. Obviously, with these other tests that were done, that has been finalized beyond doubt. Of course, the other potentials are as I previously placed. Improperly removed Software/drivers, and registry being first in line, with QModem settings and usage being second. Sorry about this, just bugs the heck out of me .... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 Re: "Port already open" problem Re: "Port already open" problem On 13 Dec 2007 23:10:53 GMT, Donald G. Davis <dgdavis@blackhole.nyx.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >(Actually, I think the ATI3 command queries the model; that returns >CL-MD56xx on this modem--perhaps Cirrus Logic?) Yes, it started out as Cirrus Logic, then it became Ambient, and now it is owned by Intel. The first "x" will tell you if your modem is controllerless (HaM) or controller based. See http://www.modemsite.com/56k/intel.asp - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Recommended Posts