Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020606115959.02c1cca0@POP2.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 12:21:13 -0400
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: "Larry Kayser" <kayser@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: LF: Programming !!!HELP!!!
In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20020606150906.007f6680@pop3.esoterica.pt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

and Brian Rogerson wrote:
>QB45

Brian, finally something I can speak to.  Yes Quick Basic 4.5 was pretty 
bad at handling serial communications.  There were some "add in" software 
to make it minimally acceptable but they were usually very expensive and 
did not work that well.

QB does work on COM1 and COM2 but you have to do a proper setup for each 
port.  The information for doing that does not seem to be easily available.....

I used to use a lot of Turbo Basic, the Borland package but it was 
certainly only barely better than the QB4.5.

>A quick look at Visual Basic cut down v4 off the front of a
>magazine circa 1995 talks about MSCOMM32.  Further
>a search of www turns up a vast array of information on the
>deficiencies of VB and others in relation to serial communication.

The serial coms in VB work excellently.  I have my remote HF station, one 
version that runs under VB6 now, with five (5) serial ports running and I 
never have any problem with this software at all.  VB AND ALL ITS LATENCY 
PROBLEMS IS TOTALLY UNSUITABLE FOR CW OPERATION.  For other uses, such as 
digital modes, it is excellent and works exceedingly well.  (We also use VB 
and coms in commercial software here and find it works excellently, as many 
as eight (8) ports full blast at 56K etc)

When I speak above about VB being unsuitable for CW operation I mean for 
operation above 10 or 15 WPM and were full breakin or full duplex operation 
is contemplated.  This is a matter of personal choice of course, there are 
some amateurs in the USA who consider that CW operation over the Internet 
using all Microsoft software is acceptable - something I consider more of a 
quaint novelty and a rather funny but very sick joke.

So the issue is really what do you want to do with your computer driven system?

PS, I have been plugging away here on using a few PIC 16F628 devices 
directly connected (in parallel on the incoming port) to a MODEM to control 
my remote HF station.  They of course have, relative to any form of PC 
operating system, ZERO delay and latency.  Assembler programming at this 
low level is not a lot of fun but one certainly can avoid Microsoft doing 
it this way hi.

Larry
VA3LK