This is a spin of pf the "Please tell me it isn't so!" thread and so off 
topic to off topic.

Clipka:
>>> > > it's a bit complicated... (Because it *is* a bit complicated.)

David:
>> > If it is (and I can't believe that it's all that complicated), why is it??

Well, exasperated, I'm willing to admit it: Graphics programming in 
Windows is
complicated, too complicated to bother with it appears to me. So I guess 
I'll have
to admit that Windows programming in a multitasking environment is 
*hard* and not
much fun and I can't do it , at least with tools and help I have been 
able to find.

Thanks for all the help. If anyone knows anything that might help me dig 
into it, let me know.

"I'm not smarter than a fifth grader." ;)

(My thought about Microsoft and all its current software are *very* 
uncharitable.)

David :)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Thanks for all the help. If anyone knows anything that might help me dig 
> into it, let me know.

Use a higher-level library. Use Tcl/Tk, or Qt, or .NET, or any of the 
hundreds of free systems that let you say "create a window X by Y, put an 
image there, and give me commands to set colors into pixels."  It's about 10 
lines of Tcl code, for example, and probably not a *whole* lot more .NET code.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Le 30/07/2009 21:41, David H. Burns nous fit lire :
> This is a spin of pf the "Please tell me it isn't so!" thread and so off
> topic to off topic.
> 
> Clipka:
>>>> > > it's a bit complicated... (Because it *is* a bit complicated.)
> 
> David:
>>> > If it is (and I can't believe that it's all that complicated), why
>>> is it??
> 
> Well, exasperated, I'm willing to admit it: Graphics programming in
> Windows is
> complicated, too complicated to bother with it appears to me. So I guess
> I'll have
> to admit that Windows programming in a multitasking environment is
> *hard* and not
> much fun and I can't do it , at least with tools and help I have been
> able to find.
> 
> Thanks for all the help. If anyone knows anything that might help me dig
> into it, let me know.
> 
> "I'm not smarter than a fifth grader." ;)
> 
> (My thought about Microsoft and all its current software are *very*
> uncharitable.)
> 
> David :)

Just 0.002€ (yes, only 10% of usual): have a look at fox-toolkit library.
(C++)
Compatible with X11 & Windows, high level enough and yet allowing finer control if
needed.

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> (My thought about Microsoft and all its current software are *very* 
> uncharitable.)

For example, attached is an old Tcl program that draws fractals on the 
screen then saves them as image files. It should still run. (Drawing pixel 
by pixel in Tcl is very slow, by the way. You're supposed to use 
higher-level objects.)

Also attached is an old OLD Java program[1] which calculates a rather 
complex image (sample attached) based on Conway's game of life, but in so 
doing draws it on the screen. The things to note is that the main class 
inherits from Frame, the update() function (near like 550) and the paint 
function (near line 500). The rest is just figuring out what needs to be 
painted.  I don't know if this one will still run as-is, but it's basically 
the same idea used in most lower-level toolkits.  You create a window, and 
when you get the request to paint the window, you get a "graphics" to paint 
on which has a bunch of methods you can use to change what's displayed.

You can look at
http://www.java2s.com/Code/CSharp/2D-Graphics/Setimageresolutionandpaintit.htm
for drawing with .NET.  The thing to note is again the class inherits from 
"Form", Main() calls Application.Run with a new instance of that form, and 
the form overrides the Paint event to also invoke Form1_Paint. Inside the 
Form1_Paint routine, you get out the Graphics object and invoke methods on 
it for filing rectangles, darwing images, lines, etc whatever else you want. 
It's in the docs. Follow the breadcrumbs backwards for examples of how to do 
all kinds of stuff.

What more do you need?



[1] Hence the ".JAVa" extension. ;-)
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fractal.tcl.txt' (4 KB) Download 'cavern.java.txt' (18 KB) Download 'cave7.gif' (82 KB)

Preview of image 'cave7.gif'

Darren New wrote:

> What more do you need?

To be perfectly frank, a lot --or maybe nothing. :)
I must retreat and study these.
Thanks :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Just 0.002€ (yes, only 10% of usual): have a look at fox-toolkit library.
> (C++)
> Compatible with X11 & Windows, high level enough and yet allowing finer control if
needed.

Thanks :)
David

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> "I'm not smarter than a fifth grader." ;)

http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/SoftwareIsHard.html?dupe

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/SoftwareIsHard.html?dupe

  It actually *is* possible to have software development which produces
(almost) bug-free programs on schedule and within budget. However, getting
to that point is extremely hard and probably prohibitively expensive.

  I loved that one article (which has also been referenced here in the past)
on how software is produced by NASA. The development system is absolutely
draconian and bureaucratic, where not a single feature or even line of code
is added, removed or modified without the change being carefully documented
and passed through an admission process. The rules are mind-numbingly strict
and bureaucratic.

  However, it works. Where projects of similar size in other, more regular
software companies, have something like 5000 bugs found in beta-testing
stage, NASA software projects have something like 5. And not just critical
bugs. *Any* bugs.

  And they *learn* from the bugs. Every time a bug is found in beta-testing,
they carefully study and document the *reason* why the bug got through to
beta-testing in the first place, through all the safeguards and development
methods, and once the reason is understood, these safeguards and methods are
improved so that similar bugs will never pass again undetected.

  (This idea of actually learning from bugs and documenting them in order
to avoid them in the future is actually a superb idea. However, how many
companies do that? I'd say the amount is really, really small. Most developers
just fix the bug and *forget* about it. Then they are doomed to repeat the
same process again in the future in similar situations.)

  And as said, they not only produce virtually bug-free programs, they do
so in schedule and within budget. How many other companies can say that?

  I liked how the article talked about the one guy who was a developer at
NASA, who wanted to go to the software industry where he could develop
software with more freedom, without all the bureaucracy. He got shocked
at how bad software development was elsewhere, and returned to NASA after
a few years.

  Of course getting to this kind of development must be rather hard and
expensive (at least at first). It also requires a kind of mentality and
expertise that most project leaders just don't have.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Of course getting to this kind of development must be rather hard and
> expensive (at least at first). It also requires a kind of mentality and
> expertise that most project leaders just don't have.

I think it's probably similar for a lot of safety-critical code.

The thing about NASA is they have safety-critical code, extremely bad press 
when it fails, and a software budget dwarfed by everything else they do. 
When the concern doesn't include how much it costs or how long it takes, 
it's a whole bunch easier to make perfect code.

Having the same development platform for 35 years can also help, as does 
having every bit of specs about how absolutely everything works. And in all 
honesty, the programs aren't all that big. How many bugs have you written 
because you're using some infrastructure code that isn't documented 
correctly and completely?

Which is not to say they're not awesome. I'm just saying they're solving a 
different problem than 3DRealms was trying to solve. :-)

http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue132/92_Space_shuttle_techno.php

http://www.popsci.com/node/31716


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.popsci.com/node/31716

  Btw, it really amuses me when the Moon landing conspiracy theorists make
the point that the lunar lander computers had less computing capacity than
a modern cellphone, like that was some kind of proof that the landings were
impossible.

  These people have clearly not seen any 4k intros (it's really amazing how
much functionality you can squeeze into 4 kilobytes of code), or tried to
find out how much hardware a cellphone really has.

  (Personally I see it the other way around: I'm amazed at how much
computing power there is in a device which you can hold in your hand.
Technology has really taken huge leaps.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> "I'm not smarter than a fifth grader." ;)
> 
> http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/SoftwareIsHard.html?dupe
> 
OK. I admit it programming is hard -- a lot harder than I imagined. It's 
much
harder than it used to be, but why? Well there's multitasking, increase 
in hardware complexity,
the internet (one has to deal with the possibility that umpteen 
advertisers are
going to send unwanted pop-ups to you machine), Microsoft updates every 15
or 20 minutes, viruses (exploiting deliberate loopholes in the Windows 
operating system),
to name a few reasons. Does this make difficult programming inevitable. 
I suppose it does;
at least it is so and little can be done about it. But I'm not 
altogether convinced that this should
make it so difficult for me programming on my own computer largely for 
my own use and not
really caring whether I'm connected to the internet all the time.

It doesn't explain why I have had so much difficulty finding 
understandable paradigms and
prototypes for WINAPI applications -- though that might be due to the 
fact that I don't have
ready access to a large library (or store) where I can thumb through the 
programming books.

All this is very educational. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://www.popsci.com/node/31716
> 
>   Btw, it really amuses me when the Moon landing conspiracy theorists make
> the point that the lunar lander computers had less computing capacity than
> a modern cellphone, like that was some kind of proof that the landings were
> impossible.

That reminds me:

Someone built a working replica of the guidance computer. Pretty neat!

http://agcreplica.outel.org/

Yeah, I remember the days of intros and such. Always cool to see how 
much they could cram into such a small executable.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> OK. I admit it programming is hard -- a lot harder than I imagined. It's 
> much
> harder than it used to be, but why?

1) Your programs are bigger. (For example, my Linux boot partition won't 
even fit in the address space that CP/M used to allow for a disk drive.)

2) Your programs are way more complex. You're not writing to the screen and 
reading from the keyboard any more. Note that stdio programs are just as 
easy as they used to be.

3) Your programs depend on a lot more than they used to. You have all kinds 
of libraries to do all kinds of things you wouldn't have dreamed of when you 
were using an 8-bit computer. You can't port OpenGL to a Z80.

4) Most importantly: Each line of code interacts with other lines of code. 
Building 20 houses is 20 times as hard (or less) than building one house. 
Building a program 20,000 lines long is much harder than 20x the effort for 
a 1,000 line program.

> Does this make difficult programming inevitable. 

Only if you want to take advantage of it. Find an old copy of MS-DOS, boot 
it, and suddenly programming will be easy again.

> I suppose it does;
> at least it is so and little can be done about it. But I'm not 
> altogether convinced that this should
> make it so difficult for me programming on my own computer largely for 
> my own use and not
> really caring whether I'm connected to the internet all the time.

Whether you're connected to the internet is irrelevant for your own 
programs, unless you're using the internet.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone built a working replica of the guidance computer. Pretty neat!
>
> http://agcreplica.outel.org/

Pfft! That's not a faithful replica: For instance, he didn't use core rope for
ROM, like the original did...

(not that I could blame that guy in any way - that type of ROM required manual
programming - *literally* >_<)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Pfft! That's not a faithful replica: For instance, he didn't use core rope for
> ROM, like the original did...

Yeah, he also admits to using RAM chips over core.. As well. I'm 
guessing it was quicker to use a chip that build a memory core from 
scratch ;)

> 
> (not that I could blame that guy in any way - that type of ROM required manual
> programming - *literally* >_<)
> 
> 

Heh. Bit, by bit... fun stuff.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Note that stdio programs are just as 
> easy as they used to be.

  Well, that depends. If your CLI program wants to eg. take advantage of
multiple processors, it will usually be a bit more complicated. (Although
some programming languages make this a bit easier.)

  A couple of decades ago multiprocessor computers were huge servers which
price started from $100k up, so for regular people it was just a dream.

  (Ok, you *could* write multithreaded CLI programs two decades ago, but
it wasn't as beneficial back then as it is nowadays.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Note that stdio programs are just as 
>> easy as they used to be.
> 
>   Well, that depends. If your CLI program wants to eg. take advantage of
> multiple processors, it will usually be a bit more complicated. (Although
> some programming languages make this a bit easier.)

True. Let's rephrase as "if you want your programs to do the same things 
they did under MS-DOS, they're just as hard to write now and no harder."

My point is that programming has gotten easier over time (such as with the 
invention of OOD, sophisticated IDEs and debuggers, etc) but the ambitions 
have grown greater.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/31/09 15:27, Darren New wrote:
> Only if you want to take advantage of it. Find an old copy of MS-DOS,
> boot it, and suddenly programming will be easy again.

	Are you kidding?

	I'd love to see what happens if I boot MS-DOS on my P4 2.53 GHz. How 
will it handle my video card? RAM? I suppose that 640K thing is there, 
but what if I want to use stuff like smartdrv and access higher memory?

	Heck, the "complicated" programming of today may be easier than booting 
to DOS.

	(And yes, DOSBox is cheating).

-- 
Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach him to use the Net 
and he won't bother you for weeks.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/31/09 15:27, Darren New wrote:
>> Only if you want to take advantage of it. Find an old copy of MS-DOS,
>> boot it, and suddenly programming will be easy again.
> 
>     Are you kidding?
> 
>     I'd love to see what happens if I boot MS-DOS on my P4 2.53 GHz. How 
> will it handle my video card? RAM? I suppose that 640K thing is there, 
> but what if I want to use stuff like smartdrv and access higher memory?
> 
>     Heck, the "complicated" programming of today may be easier than 
> booting to DOS.
> 
>     (And yes, DOSBox is cheating).
> 

I suspect that he's kidding, but I've often though about it. Hmm... I 
may have an old copy
of DOS, if I can find it, and a computer that I wouldn't be afraid to 
try it on. I suspect it won't
boot but it may be worth a try. Finding the disk will be a long term 
project, I'll report results, if any,
eventually. But one couldn't use the high resolution graphics -- or 
could one??

Of course one can do a certain amount of "system" programming even on XP 
and
and it is much easier--and faster. Maybe I should take another look at 
that assembly programming
site I ran across a while back.;)

David :)

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, he also admits to using RAM chips over core.. As well. I'm
> guessing it was quicker to use a chip that build a memory core from
> scratch ;)

Quite a deal quicker, I bet... cheaper as well I reckon (let alone that I'd have
no idea where to get some thousand tiny ferrite cores...)

(Interestingly, from all I know, core memory has never been produced with
automated machinery...)

But at least he's using wire-wrap technology. Does anyone happen to know whether
that's still in normal use these days? I heard much to my surprise that it's
more reliable than PCBs, at least when using thru-hole technology...?


> > (not that I could blame that guy in any way - that type of ROM required manual
> > programming - *literally* >_<)
> >
> >
>
> Heh. Bit, by bit... fun stuff.

Yeah. Probably makes you wish you had listened when your grandma tried to teach
you needlework...

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>  I'd love to see what happens if I boot MS-DOS on my P4 2.53 GHz. How
> will it handle my video card? RAM? I suppose that 640K thing is there,
> but what if I want to use stuff like smartdrv and access higher memory?

You'll not run into trouble with *those*:

- Video cards are all still VGA compatible (if only to interface to the BIOS).

- RAM will be 1 MB, minus whatever is occupied by hardware; contiguous memory
will be 640K of course.

- XMS drivers like HIMEM.SYS used Intel's Protected Mode architecture to access
memory above 1 MB; of course the Protected Mode is still there in modern
processors.


However, you forgot one thing that could ruin your day:

.... do you have an old PS/2 keyboard, or is it USB already?

You may also want to think about whether you can access any of the installed
hard drives. NTFS won't do of course, but also FAT32 won't do. Forget LBA mode,
to be DOS-accessible your hard disk partition must be somewhere near the
beginning of the disk and small enough.


To be able to still play around with DOS, on my last computer (Pentium 4, 2GB) I
had installed one of those parallel-IDE-to-CompactFlash adapters, and used an
old 256MB CF card. That, combined with the old PS/2 keyboard and PS/2 mouse,
did the job.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> .... do you have an old PS/2 keyboard, or is it USB already?

I just booted a Windows 98 rescue floppy burned onto a DVD on a USB keyboard 
on an x64 machine with 6G of RAM. Worked well enough to bring up a DOS 
prompt and "more readme.txt" worked, so it can't be *too* hard.

No, it couldn't see the NTFS drives. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I just booted a Windows 98 rescue floppy burned onto a DVD on a USB keyboard
> on an x64 machine with 6G of RAM. Worked well enough to bring up a DOS
> prompt and "more readme.txt" worked, so it can't be *too* hard.

Yeah, Windows 98 did come with integrated USB support already.

I wouldn't expect MS-DOS 6.0 (for instance) to do the same stunt.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/31/09 20:26, David H. Burns wrote:
> eventually. But one couldn't use the high resolution graphics -- or
> could one??

	Sure you could. 1024x768 on Fractint. And some DOS games. Likely not 
easy, though.


-- 
When the lion was given his courage, he promptly ate up the Wizard, 
Dorothy, the scarecrow and the tinman.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/31/09 21:51, clipka wrote:
> However, you forgot one thing that could ruin your day:
>
> .... do you have an old PS/2 keyboard, or is it USB already?

	PS/2 (or whatever it's called).

	In any case, aren't there adapters to convert USB to PS/2?

	Never knew what the benefit of a USB keyboard was...

> You may also want to think about whether you can access any of the installed
> hard drives. NTFS won't do of course, but also FAT32 won't do. Forget LBA mode,
> to be DOS-accessible your hard disk partition must be somewhere near the
> beginning of the disk and small enough.

	Along with whether it can handle huge HD's...

-- 
When the lion was given his courage, he promptly ate up the Wizard, 
Dorothy, the scarecrow and the tinman.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/31/09 20:26, David H. Burns wrote:
> > eventually. But one couldn't use the high resolution graphics -- or
> > could one??

>         Sure you could. 1024x768 on Fractint. And some DOS games. Likely not 
> easy, though.

  One of the major problems nowadays in running an old DOS game from DOS
is that you will most probably not get any sound. While display cards still
preserve old VGA compatibility, most soundcards and soundchips have long
ago dropped any SoundBlaster backwards compatibility. And even if that SB
compatibility could be somehow emulated, I bet you would have to fine-tune
those environment variables settings for hours before you get anything.
(I bet you will never get it working.)

  Also many old DOS games simply crash or hang when run in a modern PC
because modern PCs are so fast that it messes up the timing routines in
those games. The older the game, the more probable that they didn't expect
PCs to become thousands of times faster.

  There may also be other minor problems with XP's and Vista's DOS simulation
which may make the game unable to run or unstable.

  DOSBox has the advantage that it fully emulates a SoundBlaster card with
all the environment variables already set up correctly, so most if not all
DOS games supporting SB will work out-of-the-box.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Never knew what the benefit of a USB keyboard was...

  Try hot-swapping a PS/2 keyboard and you'll see the benefit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/31/09 20:26, David H. Burns wrote:
>> eventually. But one couldn't use the high resolution graphics -- or
>> could one??
> 
>     Sure you could. 1024x768 on Fractint. And some DOS games. Likely not 
> easy, though.
> 
> 
Yes, I have used that resolution with Fractint,  but the computer was 
booted up
in Windows (95? 98?).

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >         Never knew what the benefit of a USB keyboard was...
>
>   Try hot-swapping a PS/2 keyboard and you'll see the benefit.

How often a day do you do that on your desktop computer? :P

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> >   Try hot-swapping a PS/2 keyboard and you'll see the benefit.

> How often a day do you do that on your desktop computer? :P

  Not often with the keyboard, but I often swap my USB mouse between
my desktop computer and my work laptop. An old PS/2 mouse couldn't be
used like that (and not only because the laptop as no PS/2 port).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >         Never knew what the benefit of a USB keyboard was...
>
>   Try hot-swapping a PS/2 keyboard and you'll see the benefit.

The actual benefits are more in that...:

(1) You don't have gazillions of different connectors.

Imagine that in addition to FireWire and eSATA for external bulk memory devices,
network connector for network (of course), DVI and HDMI for display, and
what-have-you-not, you still needed the good old PS/2 for the keyboard, another
(don't mix them up!) for the mouse, parallel port for the printer and EEPROM
flasher and dongles and what-have-you-not, the Gameport for joysticks and MIDI,
and last not least RS232 for the modem and diverse like chip-card readers and
stuff alike.

PS/2 is just two connectors to get rid of, but what sense would it make to
introduce a "universal" peripherals interface to replace a host of other
connectors, but stick with the old ones for keyboard and mouse?


(2) You can have multiple keyboards at once, and/or keyboars with non-standard
keys.

Like, for instance, those nifty multimedia keys. Or one of these beasts, for
that matter:

http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=393741

(Yes, they did similar with PS/2, most notably for joysticks with gazillions of
buttons and switches; but would two of such products from different vendors be
compatible with one another?)


(3) The keyboard can double-feature as a hub to connect other periphery to, like
USB sticks for instance.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > How often a day do you do that on your desktop computer? :P
>
>   Not often with the keyboard, but I often swap my USB mouse between
> my desktop computer and my work laptop. An old PS/2 mouse couldn't be
> used like that (and not only because the laptop as no PS/2 port).

Hum... I guess other people would buy another mouse, right? :P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I just booted a Windows 98 rescue floppy burned onto a DVD on a USB keyboard
>> on an x64 machine with 6G of RAM. Worked well enough to bring up a DOS
>> prompt and "more readme.txt" worked, so it can't be *too* hard.
> 
> Yeah, Windows 98 did come with integrated USB support already.

This was the rescue disk, which was basically an MS-DOS disk. You got a 
command prompt so you could run chkdsk and fdisk. No extra drivers.

Now, it's possible the BIOS is taking the USB and putting it out to the 
appropriate BIOS calls.  I suspect that's what "legacy USB emulation" means 
in the BIOS settings.

> I wouldn't expect MS-DOS 6.0 (for instance) to do the same stunt.

There were no graphics or mouse or anything involved. Since the topic was 
the complexity of graphics programming, I just checked to see if the command 
line came up and ran.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     PS/2 (or whatever it's called).

Yes. PS/2 is the little DIN plug.  Anyone still have one of the full-size 
DIN plugs they used before that?

>     In any case, aren't there adapters to convert USB to PS/2?

Sort of. It's more like some keyboards are built to recognise that plug 
being on there and switch to sending PS/2 signals. You can't take every USB 
keyboard and use it with the adaptor.

>     Never knew what the benefit of a USB keyboard was...

You can have more than one, you can put it on a hub, you can hot plug it 
between machines, and you need less driver software to use it from scratch 
assuming someone already gave you a USB driver.

For the average desktop user? Not a whole lot.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Yeah, Windows 98 did come with integrated USB support already.

  Mostly useless, though. If you connect eg. a USB mouse to a Win98 system,
chances are that it won't work. (You have to install some driver.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> >     PS/2 (or whatever it's called).

> Yes. PS/2 is the little DIN plug.  Anyone still have one of the full-size 
> DIN plugs they used before that?

  My keyboard is so old that it has one of the big plugs. I have to use an
adaptor to connect it to a modern PS/2 connector.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   My keyboard is so old that it has one of the big plugs. I have to use an
> adaptor to connect it to a modern PS/2 connector.

Yeah, I have one of those left too, but I don't use it any more.

I recently spilled on my usual keyboard, so I switched to another I had 
sitting around.  I hadn't realized how much I touchtype even things like 
"home" and "end" and "page down".  For several days I was hitting "insert" 
instead of "home" because the block of keys is across instead of down on 
this one.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:

> Well, exasperated, I'm willing to admit it: Graphics programming in 
> Windows is complicated, too complicated to bother with it appears to me.

This is why I use OpenGL for graphics.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 08/01/09 10:08, Warp wrote:
>    Not often with the keyboard, but I often swap my USB mouse between
> my desktop computer and my work laptop. An old PS/2 mouse couldn't be
> used like that (and not only because the laptop as no PS/2 port).

	I'm not understanding why.

	I've tried this on Linux on my office machine, and it worked just fine.

	The problem usually is that if you load X without the mouse plugged in, 
then you'll need to reload X to get the mouse working. However, if you 
loaded X with the mouse, and then switch the mouse in the same session, 
it works fine.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/01/09 10:27, clipka wrote:
> PS/2 is just two connectors to get rid of, but what sense would it make to
> introduce a "universal" peripherals interface to replace a host of other
> connectors, but stick with the old ones for keyboard and mouse?

	So in other words, it's merely for manufacturer convenience?

> (2) You can have multiple keyboards at once, and/or keyboars with non-standard
> keys.
>
> Like, for instance, those nifty multimedia keys. Or one of these beasts, for
> that matter:
	
	USB is not needed to get those multimedia keys. My keyboard is PS/2 and 
it has them.

	I suppose if I think really hard, I'll come up with a need for more 
than one keyboard...

> (3) The keyboard can double-feature as a hub to connect other periphery to, like
> USB sticks for instance.

	True, but that usage seems rare. I can't recall seeing a keyboard that 
had this - although I don't doubt their existence.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I'm not understanding why.

>         I've tried this on Linux on my office machine, and it worked just fine.

  If I unplug and re-plug my PS/2 keyboard, it won't work, neither in Linux
nor in Windows. I have to reboot.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 09:30, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          I'm not understanding why.
>
>>          I've tried this on Linux on my office machine, and it worked just fine.
>
>    If I unplug and re-plug my PS/2 keyboard, it won't work, neither in Linux
> nor in Windows. I have to reboot.

	Just tried it right now (30s unplugged). Plugged it back in. Works 
fine. Could this be a kernel thing? Perhaps my kernel is more recent? 
dmesg doesn't show anything...

	OK. Weird. I just unplugged again and replugged it in within 2-3 
seconds, and the keyboard didn't work. I unplugged it and waited over 45 
seconds, and plugged it back in. It works now. No reboot, no reloading of X.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     So in other words, it's merely for manufacturer convenience?

Which leads to cheaper machines, yes. Especially laptops, where space around 
the edge is limited. Plus, I'm not sure how docking/undocking would interact 
with such.

>     USB is not needed to get those multimedia keys. My keyboard is PS/2 
> and it has them.

Correct.

>     I suppose if I think really hard, I'll come up with a need for more 
> than one keyboard...

Different keyboards with different sets of keys, like a music keyboard 
perhaps. (Not what was meant, but you see what I'm saying - specialized key 
layouts, etc).

And, of course, docked laptops.

>     True, but that usage seems rare. I can't recall seeing a keyboard 
> that had this - although I don't doubt their existence.

I had this built into a monitor once. Was weird. Never used it.

I'd surely use a USB thumbdrive port built into my keyboard.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 13:01, Darren New wrote:
> Which leads to cheaper machines, yes. Especially laptops, where space
> around the edge is limited. Plus, I'm not sure how docking/undocking
> would interact with such.

<snip>

> And, of course, docked laptops.

	As I never owned a laptop, I can see why I never saw much of a need for 
USB keyboards...

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Yes. PS/2 is the little DIN plug.  Anyone still have one of the full-size
> DIN plugs they used before that?

Me!

Only via an adapter though; don't want to swap my good old Cherry keyboard with
anything else. At least not until I come across something that's really worth
it.

(BTW, strictly speaking, PS/2 was an 80286-based PC series by IBM, which
happened to introduce those "mini-DIN" plugs, hence the colloquial name.)

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 08/02/09 09:30, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
> >>          I'm not understanding why.
> >
> >>          I've tried this on Linux on my office machine, and it worked just fine.
> >
> >    If I unplug and re-plug my PS/2 keyboard, it won't work, neither in Linux
> > nor in Windows. I have to reboot.

>         Just tried it right now (30s unplugged). Plugged it back in. Works 
> fine. Could this be a kernel thing? Perhaps my kernel is more recent? 
> dmesg doesn't show anything...

>         OK. Weird. I just unplugged again and replugged it in within 2-3 
> seconds, and the keyboard didn't work. I unplugged it and waited over 45 
> seconds, and plugged it back in. It works now. No reboot, no reloading of X.

  According to wikipedia PS/2 is not designed to be hot-swappable, and
whether it will work after a hot-swap depends on the hardware and software.
It even warns that on older PCs hot-swapping a PS/2 device might even damage
the circuits.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>  Just tried it right now (30s unplugged). Plugged it back in. Works
> fine. Could this be a kernel thing? Perhaps my kernel is more recent?
> dmesg doesn't show anything...
>
>  OK. Weird. I just unplugged again and replugged it in within 2-3
> seconds, and the keyboard didn't work. I unplugged it and waited over 45
> seconds, and plugged it back in. It works now. No reboot, no reloading of X.

Maybe because the hardware wasn't designed to inform the software of a plug-in
event, so the OS (well, keyboard driver, to be precise) needs to poll at
regular intervals to detect the keyboard was absent, in order to re-initialize
the hardware?

Post a reply to this message