COM port problems..

Hello, All!

i've bought ASUS P5B-VM mainboard, which doesn't have COM port at rear
panel, has eSATA instead (P5B too). COM1 port is present on mainboard, i
need separate COM port out panel to get it out. unfortunately, it's not
available in local stores..

i've bought STLab USB-to-serial adapter, based on Prolific chip. i've
connected DSL modem to it, and it worked quite well, but system reboots from
time to time -- i think it's because of prolific drivers, since reboots are
correlated with high DSL activity, and DSL being turned on/off.

later i found that panel thingie. there are two alternatives for pin-outs of
such thingies, unfortunately ASUS didn't specify that, but googling showed
me that it uses AT-EVEREX-INTEL pinout variant (btw, Intel specifies pinout
in their mobo specs..). but my panel had alternative -- DTK pinout, so i had
to resolder it.

then i've managed to get internet connection, but still there are problems!
when connection is on, it's quite good, i'm using it now, and it has no
problems.
but it does connect only after i use prolific adapter first -- i connect via
prolific, disconnect, and then i can connect via COM1. if i try to connect
via COM1 first, it doesn't connect, and it gots broken (it doesn't connect
even via prolific) until reboot..

windows modem logs showed me the difference -- in case of prolific, log is
quite clean. but when i connect via that COM1 panel, there's a lot of junk
comming from modem, that looks like PPP session initialization.. looks like
windows can ignore that junk, sometimes..

01-18-2007 11:28:20.468 - Recv: "}&} } } } }#
01-18-2007 11:28:20.468 - Unknown Response

is there any idea what the problem is? can such problems be possible when
one of wires incorrectly connected? i guess some junk-inhibiting wire is not
connected :).
or maybe some configuration is incorrect? i had that DSL working on old ASUS
mobo fine before, but i don't remember port settings.. i'm now using default
settings:

01-18-2007 11:28:20.468 - 115200,8,N,1, ctsfl=1, rtsctl=2

for both variants. connection settings are also same..

alternatively, maybe somebody knows how to make prolific thing working? i
can't imagine millions of people get reboots every day because of these
taiwan guys drivers.. but maybe it doesn't work correctly because of
dual-core processor?

i've already spent 20$ because of these problems, and lots of my invaluable
time.. starting thinking about changing mobo to Gigabyte -- ASUS idea of
substituting COM with eSATA (while they still have parallel port on rear
panel) appears to be idiotic.. and this mobo is piece of crap for many other
reasons too -- non-overclockable, shitty Intel Graphics drivers..

With best regards, Alex Mizrahi.

Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> Hello, All!
>
> i've bought ASUS P5B-VM mainboard, which doesn't have COM port at rear
> panel, has eSATA instead (P5B too). COM1 port is present on mainboard, i
> need separate COM port out panel to get it out. unfortunately, it's not
> available in local stores..
>
> i've bought STLab USB-to-serial adapter, based on Prolific chip. i've
> connected DSL modem to it, and it worked quite well, but system reboots from
> time to time -- i think it's because of prolific drivers, since reboots are
> correlated with high DSL activity, and DSL being turned on/off.
>
> later i found that panel thingie. there are two alternatives for pin-outs of
> such thingies, unfortunately ASUS didn't specify that, but googling showed
> me that it uses AT-EVEREX-INTEL pinout variant (btw, Intel specifies pinout
> in their mobo specs..). but my panel had alternative -- DTK pinout, so i had
> to resolder it.
>
> then i've managed to get internet connection, but still there are problems!
> when connection is on, it's quite good, i'm using it now, and it has no
> problems.
> but it does connect only after i use prolific adapter first -- i connect via
> prolific, disconnect, and then i can connect via COM1. if i try to connect
> via COM1 first, it doesn't connect, and it gots broken (it doesn't connect
> even via prolific) until reboot..
>
> windows modem logs showed me the difference -- in case of prolific, log is
> quite clean. but when i connect via that COM1 panel, there's a lot of junk
> comming from modem, that looks like PPP session initialization.. looks like
> windows can ignore that junk, sometimes..
>
> 01-18-2007 11:28:20.468 - Recv: "}&} } } } }#
> 01-18-2007 11:28:20.468 - Unknown Response
>
> is there any idea what the problem is? can such problems be possible when
> one of wires incorrectly connected? i guess some junk-inhibiting wire is not
> connected :).
> or maybe some configuration is incorrect? i had that DSL working on old ASUS
> mobo fine before, but i don't remember port settings.. i'm now using default
> settings:
>
> 01-18-2007 11:28:20.468 - 115200,8,N,1, ctsfl=1, rtsctl=2
>
> for both variants. connection settings are also same..
>
> alternatively, maybe somebody knows how to make prolific thing working? i
> can't imagine millions of people get reboots every day because of these
> taiwan guys drivers.. but maybe it doesn't work correctly because of
> dual-core processor?
>
> i've already spent 20$ because of these problems, and lots of my invaluable
> time.. starting thinking about changing mobo to Gigabyte -- ASUS idea of
> substituting COM with eSATA (while they still have parallel port on rear
> panel) appears to be idiotic.. and this mobo is piece of crap for many other
> reasons too -- non-overclockable, shitty Intel Graphics drivers..
>
> With best regards, Alex Mizrahi.
>

Maybe the flow control wires are not connected properly.
You may have the TX and RX wired up right, but maybe
the flow control isn't, leading to problems. You could
always pick one up here. The shipping would be more than
the adapter.

http://www.pccables.com/07120.htm

Paul

(message (Hello 'Paul)
(you :wrote :on '(Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:17:27 -0500))
(

P> Maybe the flow control wires are not connected properly.
P> You may have the TX and RX wired up right, but maybe
P> the flow control isn't, leading to problems.

hm, Windows sets flow control to none for ports by default, but DSL docs say
it should be set to hardware, and FIFO buffers should be disabled (i'm not
sure that later is relevant). after i enabled hardware control, there were
now immidiate changes, but now looks like it's fixed -- i see no junk in
logs. i didn't try rebooting yet, though..

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")

Alex Mizrahi <udodenko@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Paul)
> (you :wrote :on '(Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:17:27 -0500))
> (
>
>> Maybe the flow control wires are not connected properly.
>> You may have the TX and RX wired up right, but maybe
>> the flow control isn't, leading to problems.
>
> hm, Windows sets flow control to none for ports by default, but DSL
> docs say it should be set to hardware, and FIFO buffers should be
> disabled (i'm not sure that later is relevant). after i enabled
> hardware control, there were now immidiate changes, but now looks
> like it's fixed -- i see no junk in logs. i didn't try rebooting yet,
> though..

You're getting royally confused. COM1 isnt even used by the DSL at all.

(message (Hello 'Rod)
(you :wrote :on '(Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:23:38 +1100))
(
??>> hm, Windows sets flow control to none for ports by default, but DSL
??>> docs say it should be set to hardware, and FIFO buffers should be
??>> disabled (i'm not sure that later is relevant). after i enabled
??>> hardware control, there were now immidiate changes, but now looks
??>> like it's fixed -- i see no junk in logs. i didn't try rebooting yet,
??>> though..

RS> You're getting royally confused. COM1 isnt even used by the DSL at all.

why do you think so? i have DSL modem plugged into COM1.
if you say so because speed of COM port is too little -- it's a slow DSL. it
operates at 96 kbit, so speed of 115 kbit of COM port is enough for it. this
model was very popular in our country few years ago..

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")

Alex Mizrahi <udodenko@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Rod)
> (you :wrote :on '(Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:23:38 +1100))
> (
>>> hm, Windows sets flow control to none for ports by default, but DSL
>>> docs say it should be set to hardware, and FIFO buffers should be
>>> disabled (i'm not sure that later is relevant). after i enabled
>>> hardware control, there were now immidiate changes, but now looks
>>> like it's fixed -- i see no junk in logs. i didn't try rebooting yet, though..

>> You're getting royally confused. COM1 isnt even used by the DSL at all.

> why do you think so? i have DSL modem plugged into COM1.
> if you say so because speed of COM port is too little -- it's a slow
> DSL. it operates at 96 kbit,

That is hardly DSL.

> so speed of 115 kbit of COM port is enough for it. this model was very popular in our country few
> years ago..

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use a decent
modern DSL modem connected via lan or USB.

(message (Hello 'Rod)
(you :wrote :on '(Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:52:20 +1100))
(

??>> why do you think so? i have DSL modem plugged into COM1.
??>> if you say so because speed of COM port is too little -- it's a slow
??>> DSL. it operates at 96 kbit,

RS> That is hardly DSL.

how would you call thingie that provides internet access and voice phone
line over usual copper phone line? (according to tech spec, it makes 160
KBit fully digital line, and can dynamically allocate 64 kbit for voice).
our telecom provider (as well as this box vendor) calls that DSL..

??>> so speed of 115 kbit of COM port is enough for it. this model was very
??>> popular in our country few years ago..

RS> Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use a decent
RS> modern DSL modem connected via lan or USB.

in our country internet is not as developed and cheap as in USA or Europe.
this thingie was best choice for few years, only few month ago some better
options appeared..

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")

Alex Mizrahi <udodenko@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Rod)
> (you :wrote :on '(Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:52:20 +1100))
> (

>>> why do you think so? i have DSL modem plugged into COM1.
>>> if you say so because speed of COM port is too little -- it's a slow DSL. it operates at 96
>>> kbit,

>> That is hardly DSL.

> how would you call thingie that provides internet access and voice phone line over usual copper
> phone line? (according to tech spec, it makes 160 KBit fully digital line, and can dynamically
> allocate 64 kbit for voice).

That is ISDN.

> our telecom provider (as well as this box vendor) calls that DSL..

Then they dont have a clue or are lying, that is ISDN.

>>> so speed of 115 kbit of COM port is enough for it. this model was very popular in our country
>>> few years ago..

>> Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use a decent
>> modern DSL modem connected via lan or USB.

> in our country internet is not as developed and cheap as in USA or Europe. this thingie was best
> choice for few years, only few month ago some better options appeared..

Sure, but it isnt DSL, it ISDN.