Re: "Port already open" problem

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[Donald G. Davis]

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.]

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[Donald G. Davis]

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.]

 

[MEB]

"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
________

 

[Donald G. Davis]

"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.]

 

[MEB]

"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
________

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[MEB]

"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
________

 

[Donald G. Davis]

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.]

 

[Donald G. Davis]

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.]

 

[MEB]

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
________

 

[MEB]

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
________

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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.

 

[Donald G. Davis]

"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.]

 

[Donald G. Davis]

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.]

 

[MEB]

"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
________