VB6 MSCOMM wroks on one PC and not another

I have been using MSCOMM for quite awhile, this problem has dah me stumpped for a week now.
Properties of MSCOMM:
DTREnable is True
EOFEnable is TruHandshaking is 0
InBufferSize is 3072
InPutMode is 0
OutBuffSize is 512
RThreshold is 1
RTSEnable
Settings is 2400, N,8,1
SThreshold

Using the same PIC code and same VB code on different machines, I get different results. The only machine that the code operates correctly on is an older machine, x86, Windows 2000 SP2. A second machine running Win2K and a third machine running XP have this problem;
MSCOMM receives the first 8 characters, processes these 8 characters, then receives the balance. I am testing with 10 characters. I am sending PIC variables from a bit array. I am receiving the data in VB as a srting.
I have sent the data to HyperTerminal and in every case the correct data is being sent from the PIC. For some unknown reason, on certain machines all the data is not received into the buffer.
In addition to the slower processor I mentioned ealier, the copy of VB on the slower machine does not have the latest service pack while the other machines do, SP6. Attempting to load SP6 causes some errors and does not load. I don't have the errors handy.
I have places a Pauseus in the Send routine thinking the slower processor was the issue, but no change.
Any suggestions are appreciated.

B

What do you have the attribute InputLen set to?

Thanks for the responce. Input Length is set 0.

I have since sent the input string to a label, visable property set to false, and so far every test I have done, not extensive mind you but progress, has been successful. I don't why the program operates better this way, timing I'm guessing.

If InputLen should be something other than 0 please let me know. The input length is variable, no telling how many characters.

Thanks again for the interest.

B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooksydesign

Thanks for the responce. Input Length is set 0.
If InputLen should be something other than 0 please let me know. The input length is variable, no telling how many characters.

---

For Win XP & 2K2 you definitely want InputLen set to anything other than 0. I lost some hair a few years back when I wrote a piece of software for a serial io controller, worked fine on 9x with InputLen set to 0, but refused to work on XP until I changed it to equal 1.

Again, thanks for the interest in my post. Changing the receive length property to 1 did not do any good. I think that tells MSCOM buffer what to expect. If the incoming string was a fixed length it may have helped. I seem to have sorted it out by sending the string to a label first, then work with the data. It has not failed since I started doing it that way. I realize this is a work around, and the true cause is not identified. If there are other suggestions, I will most certainly try them.

Regards.

B

I no longer use MsComm and VB6, i use VBExpress or .Net. From there you can also use the LF interrupt events (comport.ReadLine) which is probably the way to go. Never ever failed for me 'till now. VB6 EOF event is one method... if you can make it work.

LF event... way easy to code on the PIC side... hserout [whatever, 10]

There's a lot of different way to have success with VB, i have some applications dealing with MBs and GBs of data transfer... problem-free since years now. Even in VB6.

I prefer the handshaking method... hardware or software.... and a preamble string never bite anyone yet.

The new Visual Basic.NET 2008 is so much better than 6 that you shouldn't waste your time trying to get it to work.

Incidentally, I just discovered that Microsoft has continued support for VB6 until the 31st of march this year. They initially terminated support back in 2005, there is obvioulsy still a considerable amount of programmers developing in it. Also, all of the latest operating systems come shipped with VB6 run times! (bet ya didn't know that) This includes Vista.

Expect to be able to run all of your VB.com applications on operating systems well into the next decade! VB6 is far from finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenaja

The new Visual Basic.NET 2008 is so much better than 6 that you shouldn't waste your time trying to get it to work.

---

It's a very painful transition from VB.com to VB.net, particularly for programmers with 10+ years background with .com (like learning to walk all over again) and a lot of people are refusing to exchange their expertise for a "start from scratch experience", because that's pretty much what it is.

lol ..
VB6 pro sells for upwards of AU $250 on eBay while .net goes for as little as $75.

VB6 Pro US $229
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Microsoft-Vis...sid=p1638.m122

VB.net 2003 $79
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/MICROSOFT-VIS...sid=p1638.m122

Both obsolete products which are officially no longer produced. VB6 was released in 97, so that's 6 years between the two, yet VB6 is worth more than 3 times as much. I have actually seen VB6 going for much more than this, as high as US $1,000

Makes you wonder huh?

Well, probably because there's a lot of free version like EXpress and people just don't buy .NET ?

On the other side, there's probably more .NET to sale than VB6.. but more code in VB6 available for free...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

Well, probably because there's a lot of free version like EXpress and people just don't buy .NET ?

On the other side, there's probably more .NET to sale than VB6.. but more code in VB6 available for free...

---

Thats plus I think Microsoft hit a serious "keynote" with VB6 that they just haven't been able to replicate since.

I think if you're going to use .net then you might as well go with C++ or C# (C sharp) I say this because all .net languages are object orientated, and there's really not much more involved with modern versions of C. So I guess the question is, is VB.net really a RAD (rapid application development) language like its predecessor? Would a professional C++ programmer like this person http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb...68164&lngWId=1 ever trade off C++ .net for VB.net like he did with C++.com? He claims that his high-tech calculator would have taken 3 times longer to develop in C++ than it did to do it in VB.

The problem is, unlike with VB6, not everyone is going to be a programmer. Sure, I've gotten my head around OOP (object orientated programming), but it has taken 2 university units to get there.

I can't agree 100% with you but i understand what you mean.

In fact everyone with a minimum of brain and a load of patience and time can be a programmer. If .NET is your first language, in theory, you'll or should learn it step by step the "recommended way". This include at least Pinvoke, Marshalls, Delegate, Garbage Collector and all other new stuff.

But if you're a long time user of another language, you might have a lot of problem to include and understand some new requirement and loose the "good-ol' way" to do things. But yeah, you can disable almost everything of these and keep using the ol' way... you can even use most, see all, old .COM components.

As long as the framework work great, there's no real problem, but if one day MicroSoft's developers screw something in... your customer could give you a call... and then you'll have to prove 'em it's caused by the Microsoft's Framework problem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

In fact everyone with a minimum of brain and a load of patience and time can be a programmer.

---

Don't know about that. I came across a group of some very frustrated people on the discussion boards when I did my first unit of Java. They weren't idiots, they certainly had a brain, but they just couldn't get their head around OOP, particularly polymorphism.

I just won a professional academic copy of VB6 on a eBay auction. For years now I have been using VB5, and for just as many years I've always wanted VB6 (there are many significant differences between 5 & 6) Most notably is the "replace" function.

VB6 is still in demand -- ironically I was up against "6" other bidders.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI....m=160220000342

I must say that I'm happy with my purchase :), considering that the "buy-it-now" price in the States typically ranges from US $250 to $1,000

Any takers on my copy of VB5 I wonder :rolleyes:

I purchased Visual Studio .NET when it was new, and my PC programmer refused to use it. When 2005 .NET finally came out (and with a free version available) I convinced him to give it a try, since they replaced many of the 6.0 features that were eliminated in the original .net release.

Not only has he embraced it, but he's said he'll never go back. For those not looking forward to a new learning curve, I suggest you give it a try. The benefits will outweigh the time taken to learn them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenaja

I purchased Visual Studio .NET when it was new, and my PC programmer refused to use it. When 2005 .NET finally came out (and with a free version available) I convinced him to give it a try, since they replaced many of the 6.0 features that were eliminated in the original .net release.

Not only has he embraced it, but he's said he'll never go back. For those not looking forward to a new learning curve, I suggest you give it a try. The benefits will outweigh the time taken to learn them.

---

Some people probably think I'm nuts for purchasing an obsolete product for $150 when I can buy .net 2005 for half that. Basically I have an application that I'm too far into to be able to switch over at this point, otherwise I would be going with .net

VB6 is an obsolete 10 year-old product Vs .net which is cutting edge technology. No disputing this much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.Jackson

VB6 is an obsolete 10 year-old product Vs .net which is cutting edge technology. No disputing this much.

---

I don't see what's so obsolete about it.
V.B.6 Enterprise is all I've got (actually V.S. 6 Enterprise), except for PBP...
How can it be obsolete if it works so damn good? Kinda like my old Chevy Blazer...32+ years old, still starts every time. Do you have to play with it once in awhile? Yes. Do you have to play nice? Yes.
Would I quit using either of them tomorrow if I got a new one (either .NET or an '08 Blazer) ? Not a chance...
(besides, I can't stand the new improved way of doing things that .NET introduced...makes me cringe...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skimask

I don't see what's so obsolete about it.

---

Make sure you take a picture of your prospective customer’s face to capture the reaction you get when you tell them that, you plan on developing their project in a language which is over 10 years old, not object orientated, and may or may not function in future operating systems. That picture would be priceless, and your bank account will remain with a negative balance too.

Priceless :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUX08pQ7Yw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

Priceless :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUX08pQ7Yw

---

That's called the "blue screen of death" for those of you who don't know. How far MS have come, I used to get that screen in 98 from doing some of the most simplest things like; killing files, registry manipulation, running multiple instances of QuarkXpress ... XP is certainly faultless in this regard. Anyway I've gotta get ready to run, big day on.

Oh there's tons of idiot errors message since i own Windows (my first was 3.0), such as "this program has perform an illegal operation and will be shut down" etc etc.. huh.. who thought to code it :D

At boot... "No keyboard detected.. press F1 to resume" :D (OK That's Bios)

now with Vista (thanks i don't have it yet) some may have fun reading this
http://blog.gadgetlite.com/2007/12/1...celess-though/

and seems the Blue screen of death have been there for Vista as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFx62...eature=related

one of my favourite banned commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNqPT...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

one of my favourite banned commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNqPT...eature=related

---

That is bloody terrible! I hope Microsoft sued and got millions! Sun micro system's products are far from perfect either. I have just lost an incredible amount of respect for Sun. I now understand why MS will never ship their OS with Java run times.

Can't tell for sure.. i'm not a Java coder... the only thing i know pretty well of Java is coffee :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

Can't tell for sure.. i'm not a Java coder... the only thing i know pretty well of Java is coffee :D

---

Who am I kidding, Java's faultless and up to 20 times more efficient than most other MS languages apart from C++, but that commercial sucks harder than a heated vacum cleaner.

... mmm... this remember me my ex girlfriend :D

Oups... sorry... she's probably reading this :D

Bah, she saw worst on Facebook...

Actually I can think of one fault with Java. Sun advise against mixing Swing & AWT GUI components as it may cause unpredictable problems. (RMIT University lecture notes)

So there you go, Java is sub perfect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.Jackson

Make sure you take a picture of your prospective customer’s face to capture the reaction you get when you tell them that

---

Heck, do you think most customers (or a receiver of said projects/equipment, whatever) care much these days? Instant gratification... Does it work? Ok, I'll take it... that sort of thing..
I know .NET is the latest/greatest/next best-est thing out there...or is it Linux? My jury is still out on that one. I got a 2nd box running Ubuntu, playing with it still. If it wasn't for the lack of app's in general, I might've switched over completely years ago.
Anywhos...I've got that .NET Express loaded and I play with it off and on. Sure, it's full of features....features that I basically don't need or use. And jeeze is it slow to operate. Takes forever to load, 1/2 again as much to close, and so on. Maybe it's just the .NET Express itself vs. the full blown .NET, I don't know. And as has already been said in loads of places, those syntax changes can sometimes really kill a guy. A person could literally spend days trying to figure out the new way of doing things because the conversion wizard doesn't get it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

Oh there's tons of idiot errors message since i own Windows (my first was 3.0), such as "this program has perform an illegal operation and will be shut down" etc etc.. huh.. who thought to code it :D

---

Do you still have a PC running anything earlier than XP?
One of the bugs that was with Windows from 95 thru ME, it finally got fixed was that stupid 'stuck menu' bug. You'd open up a folder, pull down a menu, without clicking anything, move the mouse off the open folder/menu, open up a 2nd folder, and the menu that you pulled down in the first folder would be stuck, even after you closed the original folder. And the only way to get rid of it short of a reboot, was to kill Explorer and reopen it thru Ctrl-Alt-Del.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skimask

Do you still have a PC running anything earlier than XP?
One of the bugs that was with Windows from 95 thru ME, it finally got fixed was that stupid 'stuck menu' bug. You'd open up a folder, pull down a menu, without clicking anything, move the mouse off the open folder/menu, open up a 2nd folder, and the menu that you pulled down in the first folder would be stuck, even after you closed the original folder. And the only way to get rid of it short of a reboot, was to kill Explorer and reopen it thru Ctrl-Alt-Del.

---

Funny you should mention this. I'm using a 1 month old XP computer with a clean install, nothing extra installed, no internet and only enough programs to do PIC's - it's a dedicated PIC computer. Last night I had the same hanging menu problem. I was hoping a clean computer would stop things like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skimask

(besides, I can't stand the new improved way of doing things that .NET introduced...makes me cringe...)

---

Struggles to learn. I know the feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JD123

Funny you should mention this. I'm using a 1 month old XP computer with a clean install, nothing extra installed, no internet and only enough programs to do PIC's - it's a dedicated PIC computer. Last night I had the same hanging menu problem. I was hoping a clean computer would stop things like this.

---

I haven't been able to duplicate the hanging menu thing in XP, but then again, it's XP SP2 (or is it 3 now?). I don't remember if the bug still existed in XP (raw) or SP1. Something tells me it was still there, but I'm not 100% on that.