Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:9297 comp.unix.msdos:513
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jrd
From: jrd@cc.usu.edu (Joe R. Doupnik)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Re: Problems with SimulTask 386 and MS-Kermit 3.1
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.220132.48215@cc.usu.edu>
Date: 25 Jun 91 04:01:32 GMT
References: <1991Jun23.153720.1674@unhd.unh.edu>
Organization: Utah State University
Lines: 46

In article <1991Jun23.153720.1674@unhd.unh.edu>, pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
> I'm using AT&T SimulTask 386 version 2.0 (which is actually VP/ix 1.something)
> on an AT&T SVR3.2.1 system.  I'm having a problem with MS-Kermit 3.1
> 
> When I run Kermit, with Simultask set up to allow access to the COM2 port, I
> get the error message:
> 
> ?Warning: no harware for this serial port
> ?This port will be operated through the Bios as BIOS2
> 
> In other words, Kermit has decided it will communicate with COM2 using only
> standard Bios calls.  The problem is, when I go into terminal mode, the screen
> just starts filling with the character "2".  The program doesn't crash - I can
> exit terminal mode and mess with the comm parameters, etc.  It's as if Kermit
> thinks it's receiving a steady stream of "2"'s from the COM port.  I've tried
> resetting Kermit to use the hardware ports, but it just gives the above error
> message again.
>  
> Does anyone have any ideas?  I also use Telix 3.12, and have had no problems
> at all, but I prefer MS-Kermit as it has superior terminal emulation and
> a better implementation of the Kermit protocol.
> Thanks,
> Paul Secinaro
> 
> -- 
> Paul Secinaro
> pss1@kepler.unh.edu
> p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu
-------------------------------
Paul,
	I had the same troubles with the same AT&T software about a year ago
and finally fixed it. But I can't remember the details! Well, the real
problem is VI/IX is not revealing the serial ports as (pseudo) hardware
items. The difference between what MS-DOS Kermit does about it and what some
other comms programs do is fairly simple to deduce: MSK checks out the port
before doing anything to change it or to put it into service. Goodness knows
what the system has at the address indicated in segment 40h of the Bios, but
we'd better not do real damage if it's not a standard serial port. Anyway,
that's been my view and hence that's what the Kermit code does.
	Somewhere in my dusty mental archives I recall that the VP/IX docs
comment upon making the serial ports available. You might want to review
the fine print in those documents.
	Btw, I tried a test installation of VP/IX, the version you mention,
on my SVR4 system and it's no-go. Thus if you upgrade Unix then assume that
VP/IX will need an upgrade too.
	Joe Doupnik