Help - timing ve W95

[Snail Instruments]

>Nevim, co myslite "real time" systemem, ale kazdopadne pokud nastavite
>ThreadPriority TimeCritical tak mate zarucene cely procesor pro sebe  -- coz
>ovsem snad skoro nikdy neni doopravdy potreba, vetsinou existuje i reseni
>problemu ktere se chova vice pratelsky k ostatnim aplikacim.

Jako "real time" se oznacuji operacni systemy, kde je zaruceno, ze odezva
na nejaky podnet prijde do urciteho casoveho intervalu.

Priznavam, ze jsem procesory Intel prestal podrobne sledovat u 80386, ale
moje predstava je asi takova, ze pokud prijde preruseni, tak muzete mit
nastaveno cokoliv, ale Vas aplikacni program bude presto stat. Timer muze
sice presne odmerovat cas, jak dlouho Vase aplikace stala, ale procesor si
nelze vydupat, dokud to obsluha preruseni neuzna za vhodne. To je pro
aplikaci jako programator mikropocitacu nevhodne, protoze je predepsane
nejen minimalni, ale take maximalni casovani nekterych impulsu.

>:-)))) Proc si myslite, ze by je to zajimalo ? Nevim proc tady porad
>prevlada nazor ze lidi u Microsoftu jsou uplny troubove.

Snad to neni ani tak v nedostatecnem mozkovem potencialu firmy, ale nekde
jinde. Jenom pro ilustraci si dovolim uryvek z konference o USB, castecne
zkraceno. Jako odezva dosla zprava od uzivatele iMacu, coz je, jestli jsem
pochopil dobre, notebook, kde USB je jedinym interfacem. Na MacIntoshi USB
funguje, a to uz dlouho.

J. Hanzal

Uryvek:

>For the last 6 to 12 months, I've sat here in silence reading people'
opinions 
>about USB, trying endlessly to work out where it is heading, or if in fact
it's 
>heading any any direction at all?
>
>So let's stop for one moment, turn off the CATC, and take one step back. We 
>first herd about USB in 1994, the same year IEEE-1284 came out. The first 
>revision of the specs, 1.0, was released in November 1995. Not long after
Intel 
>was fulfilling their requirement pumping out thousands of chip sets with USB 
>support. Windows 95a had already been released at this time. It was not
until 
>Windows 95 OSR2.1 that a USB stack was introduced. Noticed I omitted 
>"complaint"
>
>.....
>Why bother developing a USB device? There was no operating system to support 
>it. In fact while most motherboards had USB support, no one bothered putting 
>USB connectors on the back plates - it didn't justify the expense for a non 
>supported architecture.
>
>Windows 98 finally came out. (not to mention the quite public
demonstration of 
>the USB scanner which resulted in a blue screen, a few laughs and a
reboot) Now 
>we had something which actually supported USB and worked quite well, even 
>though it's not perfect. But you don't give up when your that close. You
keep 
>going until you get it perfect.
>
>.....
>Well today, the 
>USB keyboard and mouse which I paid a packet for is still sitting in the 
>cupboard. Why? They don't work.
>
>Which leads to the next motivation. Ease of Use. Just some of the USB
related 
>problems I've seen could suggest otherwise. Drivers or should I say OS not 
>performing how they should. Drivers having to be loaded multiple times
because 
>they are plugged into different ports and the Keyboard and Mouse Issue
again. 
>PS/2 is easy. You just plug it in. The OS normally always sorts out the PS/2 
>Mouse without any trouble.
>
>As part of my Job, I support quite a number of Computers (100+). As most 
>business do, we standardise on operation systems. We have to in order to
offer 
>the needed support. Our two main operating systems are Windows 95 which we
are 
>phasing out towards Windows NT 4.0
>Windows NT is only just starting to get mature with SP6. We certainly have
no 
>interest what so ever to move to Windows 2000 if it comes out for at least 
>another two years. 
>
>....
>
>However I still think USB has plenty of potential. It's a nice 4 wire little 
>connector and has that style and appeal to it - and It's certainly got the 
>features behind it to make it. With the introduction of 2.0 with 480bps
USB has 
>heaps of potential. Should Microsoft not see this, it's their bad luck. If I 
>was managing this project I would tell Microsoft, they are not pulling their 
>wait. It's only in the interest of a good working team relationship. After
all 
>Microsoft is letting the team down.
>
>It is certainly not a surprise that there is demand for a NT 4.0 USB Stack. 
>Just look at the number of messages from Hopeful's we get here. If Microsoft 
>intends not to fill a market demand, just have a look at the companies just 
>bending over backwards to do so. However I've let to see a stack which is
half 
>functional and doesn't cost the earth. Maybe Microsoft is rubbing of on
these 
>companies as well. This is unfortunate, they could show Microsoft how things 
>are really done.