Virtual COM Ports?
This is a discussion about Virtual COM Ports? in the Windows Hardware category; Hi, I have this problem with Win2k and Win Millenium Beta 2. I installed Win2k onto my Gateway Solo 2500 PII laptop with no hiccups. Full ACPI was detected. Great! I said to myself, but the smile wasn't to last.
Hi,
I have this problem with Win2k and Win Millenium Beta 2.
I installed Win2k onto my Gateway Solo 2500 PII laptop with no hiccups. Full ACPI was detected. "Great!" I said to myself, but the smile wasn't to last.
I have an Ericsson SH-888 mobile phone, with infra-red port so that it works as an infra-red modem. My father has a Nokia 7110 which also has an infra-red port.
In Win2k, I couldn't find any way to add a Virtual COM port to allow these phones to work. Win2k detects the device as the "Infrared" icon comes up in the taskbar, but that is as far as it gets.
The same thing (exactly) happens with Win Millenium Beta2. I thought that Millenium would have been the same as Win98.
Any suggestions?
Brendan
I have this problem with Win2k and Win Millenium Beta 2.
I installed Win2k onto my Gateway Solo 2500 PII laptop with no hiccups. Full ACPI was detected. "Great!" I said to myself, but the smile wasn't to last.
I have an Ericsson SH-888 mobile phone, with infra-red port so that it works as an infra-red modem. My father has a Nokia 7110 which also has an infra-red port.
In Win2k, I couldn't find any way to add a Virtual COM port to allow these phones to work. Win2k detects the device as the "Infrared" icon comes up in the taskbar, but that is as far as it gets.
The same thing (exactly) happens with Win Millenium Beta2. I thought that Millenium would have been the same as Win98.
Any suggestions?
Brendan
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Jan 15
Jan 18
0
2 minutes
Responses to this topic
THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR VIRTUAL COM PORTS IN W2K!
a friend of mine, who had the same problem, send me this mail:
"Microsofts reason not to support IRCOMM is, that you cannot use more
than one device with this option activated and the infrared port would
be locked to one paticular device. But I think they should give the user
the joice. Because most IRDA applications (and very usefull ones !) do
need IRCOMM. FInaly they come with a professional OS which is laso fit
for the mobile user and you get this major obstruction. I will roll back
to NT4 and use the IR Stack from www.extendsys.com as my palm and my
cellphone modem rely on the implementation of IRCOMM and i need a save
environment because my machine contains semi confident data. (Patients
database). It is a shame for MS not to implement a basic feature
required by many people in an OS wich names itself 2000 (and not 1968)"
see also
http://msdn.microsoft.com/standards/top150/hardware.asp
seb
a friend of mine, who had the same problem, send me this mail:
"Microsofts reason not to support IRCOMM is, that you cannot use more
than one device with this option activated and the infrared port would
be locked to one paticular device. But I think they should give the user
the joice. Because most IRDA applications (and very usefull ones !) do
need IRCOMM. FInaly they come with a professional OS which is laso fit
for the mobile user and you get this major obstruction. I will roll back
to NT4 and use the IR Stack from www.extendsys.com as my palm and my
cellphone modem rely on the implementation of IRCOMM and i need a save
environment because my machine contains semi confident data. (Patients
database). It is a shame for MS not to implement a basic feature
required by many people in an OS wich names itself 2000 (and not 1968)"
see also
http://msdn.microsoft.com/standards/top150/hardware.asp
seb
see also
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/backgrnd/html/ircomm.htm#ircomm_novirtserports
that makes it really clear
unfortunately
seb
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/backgrnd/html/ircomm.htm#ircomm_novirtserports
that makes it really clear
unfortunately
seb
