Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:42:12 -0500 From: John Musielewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Fat32 in DOS
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:44:44 -0700, you wrote: >Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:39:14 +0800 >From: Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [LIB] Fat32 in DOS > >At 12:10 AM 6/09/2002 -0700, you wrote: >>Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 02:03:43 -0500 >>From: John Musielewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: [LIB] Fat32 in DOS >> >>On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:06:43 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT) >> >From: David Chien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Subject: Re: [LIB] Fat32 in DOS >> > >> >> Hmmm..say you wanted a usb port. Wouldn't it just be seen as com1 on the >> >> libretto if your docking ports are disabled and you would access it as >> com1? >> >> Or is usb seen differantly? >> > >> > Usually, USB only works in GUI OSs and Linux, but in DOS, there really >> hasn't >> >been any standard at all. It's all up in the air, and usually it's not >> seen as >> >COM1. >> >>Weird. It is basically a port isn't it? > >Actually, it's not a port (which is designed to communicate between 2 >entities), it's a bus (which is designed to simultaneously connect many >entities, a bit like SCSI or PCI is for instance - how will you address the >potentially 128 devices you'll have hanging off a USB root hub if you gave >it a name like COM1? Especially if your motherboard has 2 or 3 root hubs >ike some do?). Last time I looked though, DOS doesn't assign things like >firewire ports or AGP ports (yes, the AGP slot IS classed as a port) device >names, its just legacy ports (like COM or LPT ports) that get them. Linux >assigns everything device names but thats a slightly different system (and >you'd get problems if you tried to treat, say, a USB device the same way as >a COM port for instance). The thing about USB is that, as its name states, >its universal. Therefore its pretty dependant on drivers. Think about it as >a daisy-chainable PCI bus system (yes that analogy falls over in many ways >but its probably more accurate than trying to think of it as being like a >COM or LPT port). You can plug many things into it, many things that you >plug in may be picked up straight away (Soundblaster compatible sound cards >or NE2000 compatible network cards into PCI slots for instance are like USB >mass storage devices into a USB port), others will require drivers. Thats >the reason why its mainly GUI OS's (and Linux) that have support ... it's >because USB is rather new so only newer OS's will natively support it >(which so happen to be mostly GUI OS's and Linux) and because the driver >support needed is rather extensive (certainly compared to your plain >vanilla COM or LPT port). > > > >- Raymond > So what'd you go into this long spiel for? I'm not a computer hardware engineer nor computer geek and don't claim to be one. So its a buss. That means it'll be reported as a buss (if the cardbus drivers do their job) and each device on that buss will have its own driver. What do you think? Dos systems have been bussless all these years? It doesn't sound difficult, complex or anything only a high powered gui system could handle. In fact once I get my cardbus drivers paid for I may pick up a usb cardbus card and printer and make them work in dos. Anyway I'm not interested in hooking up 100 usb devices and running them all at the same time. All I would want to do is connect a printer maybe my camera and a scanner through a cardbus card. That way I can print and scan at the same time. It would certainly be much faster and better than doing it in a gui system such as windows or linux x windows. John >--- > > >/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ >| | "Does fuzzy logic tickle?" | >| ___ | "My HDD has no reverse. How do I backup?" | >| /__/ +-------------------------------------------| >| / \ a y b o t | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | >| | Need help? Visit #Windows98 on DALNet! | >| ICQ: 31756092 | Libretto IRC channel #Libretto on DALNet! | >\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ > > > > >************************************************************** >http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list >http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives > > -------TO UNSUBSCRIBE------- >Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be >addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text >on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe > --------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------ >Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest >************************************************************** > ************************************************************** http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives -------TO UNSUBSCRIBE------- Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe --------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------ Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest **************************************************************
