On 04 Apr 98  10:46:54, mark lewis said this to Tom Rutherford
about "OS/2 Update Wizard Word A":
 TR> Why in the Sam Hill do people lock the port with SIO, anyway?
 TR> Isn't the comm. software supposed to handle whether or not the
 TR> port is locked?
 ml> errr... tom... BBS systems that use a FOSSIL driver generally need to
 ml> have the port locked for best thruput and handling... since the BBS
 ml> software simply talks to the FOSSIL driver and (under OS/2) the FOSSIL
 ml> (being vx00) talkes to the com port (under OS/2, SIO) then something
 ml> somewhere has to lock the port... since SIO is at the base of the
 ml> whole structure, SIO is the logical place to lock the port...
As I said in a previous message, I'd forgotten about BBSes, but it
seems like everyone was talking about locking their ports, and it makes
me wonder if I'm the only "civilian" out here with a Courier and OS/2.
:-)
 TR> my situation, I use Qmodem 4.6 Test Drive for DOS, in a DOS
 TR> session under Warp 3.0, and Qmodem locks the port.  So, I
 TR> just let SIO float.  I don't recall programs like WiveWire
 TR> or Zap-O-Com *not* locking the port, but maybe they don't...?
 ml> that is fine in your situation but it's a lot different that running a
 ml> bbs program... it would not surprise me in the least if there are some
 ml> who are locking the port in SIO and using the software you are with
 ml> the same configuration. i have to wonder, though, what would happen if
 ml> SIO was locked at 115200 and your qmodem was locked at 57600... would
 ml> it work or no?? ;-)
It would probably experience reverse peristalsis.  But, I'd have to look
up how to lock the port with SIO, and I'd have to re-&W my modem at 56K,
so I might not get to trying it right away.  :-)
      -=> Tom Rutherford -- Team OS/2 <=-
... FILE NOT FOUND:  (A)bort, (R)etry, (K)ill innocent bystanders?
--- Blue Wave/OS2 v2.30
---------------