• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does XP still support serial and parallel port devices?

D

duragezic

Lifer
I need to make either a serial or parallel port version of a TI link cable. I have the components for both (mostly) and they are both relatively easy. I'm sort of leaning towards the serial one since it can be supposedly used with TI's official software but I'm having trouble fitting all the components into a DB-9 housing/shell.

I mentioned maybe just doing the parallel one but a fellow co-op said he thought XP might not've supported it anymore? I seem to remember them abandoning support for one of the two as well (in favor of USB obviously) but I dont know for sure.

OTOH, my work laptop runs XP and I've used Microchip ICE2000 via parallel port connection while testing SCI with a device through the serial port. So in the case they both seemed to work fine.
 
Certainly XP supports both serial and parallel devices, along with USB. Whether or not TI's software for XP will use those ports is a different question, but that has nothing to do with the OS-level support.
 
Yeah, I can't imagine Microsoft ever dropping support for serial as almost all enterprise equipment use it for terminal connections. Granted, I can't think of any current uses of parallel, but there are a ton of legacy printers still in use that it's still pretty necessary.
 
I think raw access to the ports may have been deemphasized, at least by default, from NT on. I don't think that the restriction is ironclad; but I remember running into cases where programs that needed direct access had to jump through different hoops in NT than in 9x/ME.
 
I used 2 DB9 ports from the back of my computer when I was designing my senior project. That computer was windows XP. 1 Serial port did wireless RS-232 serial communication to my device, the other was used for in circuit programming of my embedded microchip.
 
Ok.. so XP is fine then. Thanks! I guess I'll hit some TI forums to see about the link cable itself, thats prolly where I'm running into a problem.
 
Originally posted by: phisrow
I think raw access to the ports may have been deemphasized, at least by default, from NT on. I don't think that the restriction is ironclad; but I remember running into cases where programs that needed direct access had to jump through different hoops in NT than in 9x/ME.
Click to expand...

Not deemphasized, disallowed. You can't have a multitasking OS and let individual apps start talking to the hardware directly. As such with NT and on if you need direct access to the port you need a device driver to act as the middle man. However, there are a dozen paid and open source projects that give the direct port access the OP might need if he goes the parallel route.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Not deemphasized, disallowed. You can't have a multitasking OS and let individual apps start talking to the hardware directly. As such with NT and on if you need direct access to the port you need a device driver to act as the middle man. However, there are a dozen paid and open source projects that give the direct port access the OP might need if he goes the parallel route.
Click to expand...
Look up 'giveio'.

Interestingly, there is a wierdness with XP's task-scheduling or interrupts or something. In W2K, I could easily use my external serial modem, and defrag my HDs at the same time. If I try that in XP, the defrag causes the serial port issues, no bytes pass, and it eventually times out and hangs up.

You can test this even by using the modem hardware info scan, and running defrag in the background, and pausing it and then testing the modem hardware again.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: bsobel
Not deemphasized, disallowed. You can't have a multitasking OS and let individual apps start talking to the hardware directly. As such with NT and on if you need direct access to the port you need a device driver to act as the middle man. However, there are a dozen paid and open source projects that give the direct port access the OP might need if he goes the parallel route.
Click to expand...
Look up 'giveio'.

Interestingly, there is a wierdness with XP's task-scheduling or interrupts or something. In W2K, I could easily use my external serial modem, and defrag my HDs at the same time. If I try that in XP, the defrag causes the serial port issues, no bytes pass, and it eventually times out and hangs up.

You can test this even by using the modem hardware info scan, and running defrag in the background, and pausing it and then testing the modem hardware again.
Click to expand...

Doesnt happen here, you have a bad driver somwhere in that stack (or a hw issue)

 
Windows XP supports Serial and Parallel ports so good, that when you install XP on a motherboard that does NOT have serial or parallel ports, the drivers for those ports will still be installed.

Case example:

My previous Abit AN8.. you know how Abit loves to drop legacy ports..
After an installation of XP, go into device manager, and check "View Hidden Devices" in the "Non-Plug and Play Drivers" section, you'll see the serial and parallel drivers installed, but with the yellow exclaimation mark on them.

 
XP most definitely supports parallel and serial ports. I don't use them often, but they are there - automagically.

Ports
 
No problems encountered with XP and either serial or parallel ports. I've got one library branch so far using XP Pro sp2 with serial ports for the 3M RFID reader pads, parallel for the Epson receipt printers, and PS/2 ports for the Metrologic barcode scanners. 🙂

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top