OT - Garmin database updates PROBLEM SOLVED

[Michael Ware]

Couldn't get update to run on my Windows 98 machine (166mHz) it was time for
a new one, got a 3 gHz with Windows XP works fine. Got the obstacle database
updated.
Garmin tech support did a fine job, tried lots of things. Now since
Micros@ft isn't supporting 98 anymore, it was REALLY time for a new box.

Mike

[john smith]

In article >,
"Michael Ware" > wrote:

> Couldn't get update to run on my Windows 98 machine (166mHz) it was time for
> a new one, got a 3 gHz with Windows XP works fine. Got the obstacle database
> updated.
> Garmin tech support did a fine job, tried lots of things. Now since
> Micros@ft isn't supporting 98 anymore, it was REALLY time for a new box.

And I thought I was th only one, using an ancient technology Windows 95
Thinkpad 760!

[kontiki]

Michael Ware wrote:
> Garmin tech support did a fine job, tried lots of things. Now since
> Micros@ft isn't supporting 98 anymore, it was REALLY time for a new box.
>

I finally bit the bullet myself last week as well, although I never had
trouble updating my GPS with my old Win98 system.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
...
> Couldn't get update to run on my Windows 98 machine (166mHz) it was time for a
> new one, got a 3 gHz with Windows XP works fine. Got the obstacle database
> updated.
> Garmin tech support did a fine job, tried lots of things. Now since Micros@ft
> isn't supporting 98 anymore, it was REALLY time for a new box.

My GOd !!! How old is that thing? I didn't know there were any of those left
running. Just curious, but how much RAM did it have? 8 meg? 16?
--
Jim in NC

[Stefan]

Morgans schrieb:

>> Couldn't get update to run on my Windows 98 machine (166mHz) it was
>> time for a new one, got a 3 gHz with Windows XP works fine. Got the
>> obstacle database updated.

> My GOd !!! How old is that thing? I didn't know there were any of
> those left running. Just curious, but how much RAM did it have? 8
> meg? 16?

Why shold that matter? I find it just plain crazy that 166 MHz shouldn't
be enough for a plain simple data transfer over a serial line.

But then, I've just seen that Michael wrote 166 mHz. Now this may be
marginal, agreed.

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> My GOd !!! How old is that thing? I didn't know there were any of those left
> running. Just curious, but how much RAM did it have? 8 meg? 16?

There are still a lot of people running Windows 3.1.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:27:03 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:
> My GOd !!! How old is that thing? I didn't know there were any of those left
> running. Just curious, but how much RAM did it have? 8 meg? 16?

I can remember running multiuser UNIX machines with that much memory
and they ran *very* well...

[Mxsmanic]

Grumman-581 writes:

> I can remember running multiuser UNIX machines with that much memory
> and they ran *very* well...

In those days, programmers tried to write efficient code. And there
was no elaborate, transparent, three-dimensional, glowing, glistening
graphic user interface to drive (the GUI can easily consume 80% of
processor power on a Windows system).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Why shold that matter? I find it just plain crazy that 166 MHz shouldn't
> be enough for a plain simple data transfer over a serial line.
>
> But then, I've just seen that Michael wrote 166 mHz. Now this may be
> marginal, agreed.

It is enough.

However, I have found that not all serial devices are the same and what
should work in theory does not always.

For example, I have some pinball machines that use a serial connection to
update the firmware. Unfortunately, I could just not get the update to work
correctly with a newer computer. I had to actually downgrade to a slower
one for things to work.

It wasn't a performance issue. It was a basic difference in timing issue
somewhere, in which the slower computer didn't manifest the problem but the
faster one did.

I was later able to modify the firmware updating software so that it could
deal with the subtle timing difference and run on faster computers (the
timing difference generated spurious bytes on the serial line, and the
update software wasn't doing enough error checking to accomodate the
errors). But if I hadn't had access to the source code, the easiest option
for fixing the problem would have been to simply use a different computer.

Just as is the case here. It's unlikely that the difference between the
166Mhz and 3Ghz PCs is specifically related to a performance requirement.
It's much more likely that there's just something different about the slower
computer that was never tested or discovered by Garmin when they were
writing the update software (probably because there didn't seem to be a need
to). Using a different speed computer makes the problem just go away.

Pete

[john smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Morgans writes:
>
> > My GOd !!! How old is that thing? I didn't know there were any of those
> > left
> > running. Just curious, but how much RAM did it have? 8 meg? 16?
>
> There are still a lot of people running Windows 3.1.

I have 3.11