|
Tried to put SetTimer() in OnInitDialog(), just trigger OnTimer() once, so weird.
But it is a old project wrote by others, I just tried to add a timer, to do something.
I wonder timer is a resource, like c++ "new" something, right? it will take up memory, if settimer repeatedly, no killertimer, then that means it will use more and more memory, right?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a new question about SetTimer(), if I use a unique ID, say,
SetTimer(2, 1000, NULL), then, I repeat this statement many times,
SetTimer(2, 1000, NULL),....
Then, I set one timer named 2 many times, or I set many timer with same name 2? that is, after 100 SetTimer(2,1000,NULL); there is only one Timer with name 2 in the system. or there are 100 pcs Timer with name 2 in the system?
|
|
|
|
|
In this case you are just resetting Timer2 with every call, but why do that - again it serves no purpose. Maybe it would be better if you actually explained what problem you are trying to solve.
Use the best guess
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I just want a module to work, so I can test my new function in that module.
No enough time to find why the timer needs to reset.
Then you think in OnTimer() function, I use SetTimer(2,1000,NULL), it's not create a new Timer, just reset
the ID=2 Timer, right?
|
|
|
|
|
econy wrote: I just want a module to work, so I can test my new function in that module.
I'm afraid that does not help us to understand why you need a timer.
econy wrote: SetTimer(2,1000,NULL), it's not create a new Timer, just reset the ID=2 Timer, right?
That's correct; see here[^] for further information.
Use the best guess
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, then setTimer(id2) many times, means reset the id2 timer, right?
The system not create many timers.
|
|
|
|
|
How many more times do you need to ask this? Go and read the documentation if you cannot believe what you have been told.
Use the best guess
|
|
|
|
|
I am building an application that needs to compress data before being sent via socket. Performance is very very critical and I want to make use of native functions i.e. no interop calls into .net libraries. I am building it as a C++ application.
I did find Compression API that will take an input and provide a compressed output. PLEASE BEAR THE FACT THAT I AM NOT USING ANY FILES (DISK FILES). Instead I am just dealing with raw stream.
But this Compression API is available only from Windows 8 onwards and Windows Server 2012. How do I go about finding a solution if I were to do this on Windows 7 and and a server that is say 2008 or 2003
Hickups:
Cabinet API does not help as it always does it thru files?
Explored the option of CMemFile and see if I can break the ice but the m_handle is of no use nor will there be a need to open or close files as I am just dealing with raw bytes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am trying template for splitter view but getting error in IMPLEMENT_DYNCREATE_T.
I am using VS2008. Plz help
|
|
|
|
|
And the error message is anybodys guess.
|
|
|
|
|
It gives error at :
IMPLEMENT_DYNCREATE_T (TView, U, CView)
Error is
" error C2275: 'TView<U>' : illegal use of this type as an expression"
Please help.
|
|
|
|
|
That does not match with the line of code you have shown. However, assuming that's just a typo, where is TView<U> defined?
Use the best guess
|
|
|
|
|
New motherboards do not have built in printer ports. There are many devices that used these ports. I have several chip programming adapters.
I would like to be able to read and write the LPT ports directly. Not using the Windows print spooler.
Does anyone know where to get the port information for PCI parallel port?
Bob Macklin
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people that sell the PCI parallel cards will not give you the information on how to direct access them.
Bob Macklin
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I read that article. As it says, the PCI parallel card are useless for anything other than connecting a printer. They are not a PCI implementation of the original ISA parallel card.
I have aone computer with a motherboard PP. I have an older Pentium motherboard with both a motherboard PP and ISA slots. So the most rational solution is a special computer for my programmers that use the PP devices.
Thanks for the help.
Bob Macklin
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
|
|
Have you considered fitting a PCMCIA (Cardbus) slot? there are loads of pcmcia printer port cards.
software-dongle-lpt-pcmcia.html
modified 22-May-13 5:04am.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting solution but I need to do this to a non-laptop computer.
My laptop does have an available motherboard printer port.
A PCMCIA slot is equivalant to an ISA slot.
Bob Macklin
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
|
|
macklinbob wrote: A PCMCIA slot is equivalant to an ISA slot.
Yes I realise it's equivalent to ISA slot, but these days finding a legacy port with 100% functionality is pretty rare. Is this a programming problem or a hardware problem?
|
|
|
|
|
I am a retired custom chip designer. I have several chip programing adapters that use the parallel port. Newer USB programming adapters cost too much for my budget.
There are other applications where the PP was used as an external interface for devices other than printers.
I may be able to do this through the Window print spooler but it more complex that using the direct ISA PP.
For new projects I use the FDTI USB serial port adapters. That is a much cleaner solution.
It is possible to make a PCI board that looks like the original ISA PP board. I have done that many years ago. But is also an expensive solution. But that solution will not work with a PCIe slot.
I have been programming PCs since 1984. We found the PC was a better soltion than a MAC for making custom test equipment and process control systems. Now neither a normal PC or MAC is a good solution to this problem.
My last job before retiring was designing PCI interfaces for medical electronics.
Bob Macklin
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb-ass question. But doesn't Windows (and most OSes) these days abstract away most of the hardware with the very aptly named Hardware Abstraction Layer?
I'm not a hardware junkie. But I'm interested the core design features/functions of Operating Systems including embedded, which was how I arrived at suggesting PCMCIA as an option.
Not really sure how ISA is such a huge problem, there were PCI cards manufactured for that interface, plug 'n' play too. (who'da thunk it?) 
|
|
|
|
|
ISA card were not Plug and Play. The use had to read the manual and set jumpers on the card. He/she had to do it correctly.
PCI and Plug and Play happened at the same time. The purpose of PCI was bus speed. The purpose of Plug and Play was to allow the system to select the device addresses and interupts
Plug and Play was called "PLUG and PRAY" at first. It took a couple of years to get the bugs out. And the user had no control over the problem.
My problem is trying to use old external devices on a modern computer. Partly because new devices are to expensive for an 80 year old OF. Partly because some older chips I have cannot be programmed by current programmers. The chips are out of production but but I have a supply of them. To use newer chips I have to recode the design.
The PCMCIA adapter is good solution for modern laptop with nor parallel port. But my laptop is 10 years old and does have a useable parallel port.
It's just inconvienient to use the laptop. I'd really rather use my fairly new tower with much better resources and a real keyboard and monitor.
Versions of Windows after Win98 were designed to try and keep the user away from the hardware. Not a good thing for someone doing hardware design.
Bob Macklin
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, I remember those manual IRQ/DMA days too. 
But my card didn't need manual setting, which was situation after pnp that I wanted to point out. There are modern cards now. Maybe harder to find, but they were still available only 5-6 years ago.
macklinbob wrote: My problem is trying to use old external devices on a modern computer. Partly because new devices are to expensive for an 80 year old OF. Partly because some older chips I have cannot be programmed by current programmers. The chips are out of production but but I have a supply of them. To use newer chips I have to recode the design.
My own experience, even with USB-Serial has been dismal. Trying to get a pda to communicate through an iMac with an 8-pin serial to USB was hopeless. Ditto, when trying to get a netbook to drive enough current to signal an ancient Atari disk drive.
macklinbob wrote:
Versions of Windows after Win98 were designed to try and keep the user away from the hardware. Not a good thing for someone doing hardware design.
I'm not one for throwing out old stuff either, mostly due to past experience of not being able to work with modern ways. But I have made some sacrifices lately, and finally gave up on supporting pure DOS on real hardware. Which as you rightly point out is a big handicap for direct hardware access. 
I sold my eprom programmer on eBay shortly after. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
