LPT Problems in XP

[Guest]

Here's the scoop: I have a new computer with an ASUS P5N32-SLI motherboard.
This motherboard has no physical parallel ports at all. It seems to be a new
trend. XP Pro was installed. I now need an LPT1 to interface to some
speciallized IC programming equipment, so I added a MosChip Technoloy
SY-PIO9835-2S1P PCI card which has 2 COM ports and 1 LPT port. When
installation was complete,
the parallel port was added as LPT3. The specialized hardware cannot
communicate on LPT3, so I need this physical parallel port to be reinstalled
as LPT1. In the Device Manager under Ports (COM & LPT), only COM1, LPT3,
COM3, and COM4 exist. The latter 3 are from the MosChip Technology PCI card.
LPT3 cannot be changed to LPT1 on the resources tab because the "Setting
Based ON", "Use Automatic Settings", and "Change Settings" controls are all
greyed out and inoperative. Is this because all 3 LPT ports are though to
exist already, so you can't change one? Under Printers and FAXs, the
properties for any given printer allows assignement to any of the 3 parallel
ports LPT1, LPT2, and LPT3. This suggests Windows thinks they exist. A
regedit search of the registry keys shows that all 3 LPT ports are listed
under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE >> Software >> Microsoft >> Windows NT >> Current
Version >> Ports. I do not know why LPT1 and LPT2 are listed here if they do
not exist. Is this why the first real LPT port installed itself as LPT3?
How should I correct this? Should I uninstall LPT3, then delete the LPT1 and
LPT2 registry keys from the registry location above, and lastly reinstall the
new physical LPT port? Will this make it come up as LPT1? Are there any
downside risks or considerations to doing this?

 

[Guest]

After I and my Friends tried several PCI cards with no success, I checked
with a
number of manufacturers who have the most configurability (including tech
support at www.lavalink.com and and www.cablemax.com (sold thru USBGear and
SerialGear) (LPT-1284-LP, 159548, 158343, etc.)). They infomed me that as
far as they know it is impossible due to the OS.

Since the time I posted this I have found that as of XP, Microsoft no longer
supports fully featured LPT or COM ports. According to Microsoft's article:
"Legacy I/O Removal to Advance the PC Architecture", (and a number of others
I might add) the ability to have IRQs, DMAs, and I/O address ranges is part
of the intentional abandonment of anything having to do with ISA
architecture. This is for the embetterment of humanity by "Removal of
obsolete, slow, complicated, and often poorly understood interfaces
offer[ing] obvious benefits toward this end: simpler, more robust machines,
and a lower cost of goods." From what I can gather, the plan is for
abandonment to become more guaranteed by Vista and its progeny.

My hypothesis is this: When COM and LPT ports are built into the
motherboard, the designers have the ability (at least for now) to add special
hardware and software in the BIOS that may still allow these ports to operate
in a relatively fully featured way. However, if you happen to have a
motherboard without them and try to add them with a PCI card, it will no
longer be possible (as of XP) to have any fully featured ones on your
computer, so just get over it. It takes about 2 person-months of labor to
reconstruct my development environment on a new machine.

Of course, this leaves me with very expensive development systems for
electronics and ICs which I can no longer support with Microsoft. I'm hoping
some creative soul has come up with some viable alternative, but judging from
what I've seen in many days of internet searches, there is no commercially
available solution.

I hope and pray someone truly proves me wrong, but after nearly a dozen
people who deal with things like this as their daily job have come up
enpty-handed, a solution does not seem likely.

PS: While this is clearly an operating system caused problem, I will also
try the hardware group to see if they have any conceivable work arounds for
Microsoft's abandonment of OS support for legacy I/O requirements as of XP.

 

[Ghostrider]

Here's the scoop: I have a new computer with an ASUS P5N32-SLI motherboard.
This motherboard has no physical parallel ports at all. It seems to be a new
trend. XP Pro was installed. I now need an LPT1 to interface to some
speciallized IC programming equipment, so I added a MosChip Technoloy
SY-PIO9835-2S1P PCI card which has 2 COM ports and 1 LPT port. When
installation was complete,
the parallel port was added as LPT3. The specialized hardware cannot
communicate on LPT3, so I need this physical parallel port to be reinstalled
as LPT1. In the Device Manager under Ports (COM & LPT), only COM1, LPT3,
COM3, and COM4 exist. The latter 3 are from the MosChip Technology PCI card.
LPT3 cannot be changed to LPT1 on the resources tab because the "Setting
Based ON", "Use Automatic Settings", and "Change Settings" controls are all
greyed out and inoperative. Is this because all 3 LPT ports are though to
exist already, so you can't change one? Under Printers and FAXs, the
properties for any given printer allows assignement to any of the 3 parallel
ports LPT1, LPT2, and LPT3. This suggests Windows thinks they exist. A
regedit search of the registry keys shows that all 3 LPT ports are listed
under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE >> Software >> Microsoft >> Windows NT >> Current
Version >> Ports. I do not know why LPT1 and LPT2 are listed here if they do
not exist. Is this why the first real LPT port installed itself as LPT3?
How should I correct this? Should I uninstall LPT3, then delete the LPT1 and
LPT2 registry keys from the registry location above, and lastly reinstall the
new physical LPT port? Will this make it come up as LPT1? Are there any
downside risks or considerations to doing this?

Why would you have bought a computer designed for gaming using the NVIDIA
SLI chipset instead of a high-end desktop computer that uses comparable
CPU's but equipped with a backpanel parallel port and internal I/O headers
for serial ports, etc.? Looking at the ASUS P5NB32-SLI, it would appear
that the NVIDIA chipset is obviously modified from its Intel origins. And
NVIDIA could have very well upsurped the addresses for LPT1 and LPT2 for
its own [SLI] purposes. The situation might well be unfixable in trying to
re-assign LPT3 to LPT1. ASUS's specs show that the P5WDG2 WS based on the
Intel 975 chipset might work pretty well for your purposes.

 

[Paul]

After I and my Friends tried several PCI cards with no success, I checked
with a
number of manufacturers who have the most configurability (including tech
support at www.lavalink.com and and www.cablemax.com (sold thru USBGear and
SerialGear) (LPT-1284-LP, 159548, 158343, etc.)). They infomed me that as
far as they know it is impossible due to the OS.

Since the time I posted this I have found that as of XP, Microsoft no longer
supports fully featured LPT or COM ports. According to Microsoft's article:
"Legacy I/O Removal to Advance the PC Architecture", (and a number of others
I might add) the ability to have IRQs, DMAs, and I/O address ranges is part
of the intentional abandonment of anything having to do with ISA
architecture. This is for the embetterment of humanity by "Removal of
obsolete, slow, complicated, and often poorly understood interfaces
offer[ing] obvious benefits toward this end: simpler, more robust machines,
and a lower cost of goods." From what I can gather, the plan is for
abandonment to become more guaranteed by Vista and its progeny.

My hypothesis is this: When COM and LPT ports are built into the
motherboard, the designers have the ability (at least for now) to add special
hardware and software in the BIOS that may still allow these ports to operate
in a relatively fully featured way. However, if you happen to have a
motherboard without them and try to add them with a PCI card, it will no
longer be possible (as of XP) to have any fully featured ones on your
computer, so just get over it. It takes about 2 person-months of labor to
reconstruct my development environment on a new machine.

Of course, this leaves me with very expensive development systems for
electronics and ICs which I can no longer support with Microsoft. I'm hoping
some creative soul has come up with some viable alternative, but judging from
what I've seen in many days of internet searches, there is no commercially
available solution.

I hope and pray someone truly proves me wrong, but after nearly a dozen
people who deal with things like this as their daily job have come up
enpty-handed, a solution does not seem likely.

PS: While this is clearly an operating system caused problem, I will also
try the hardware group to see if they have any conceivable work arounds for
Microsoft's abandonment of OS support for legacy I/O requirements as of XP.

The motherboard has a Super I/O chip. Check the part number on it and
download a datasheet. The parallel port will be on there.

Asus has about three options for parallel I/O. Fully supported and available on
the backplate. Fully supported but provided by a header on the motherboard
and needing an adapter. The third option is to not pinout the parallel port
any more, and perhaps, disable that interface at the BIOS level, so it won't
be enumerated by Windows. If Windows cannot see the enumeration, there is no
reason to support it.

Making the setting visible in the BIOS, is possible with some BIOS editing
tools. For example, I have an older motherboard with a hacked BIOS, where
someone made more of the available settings visible to the user. This is
not an easy thing to do for someone with no experience in that area
(me included).

So it could be just the BIOS interface level that prevents the interface
from working. You might well find that the Super I/O still has the interface.

To use it, you'd still need to connect external resistors and connector and
whatever else a parallel port uses. I don't believe the port needs to be
buffered, and the necessary drive exists at the Super I/O level to make
it work.

"Abandonment" starts with the motherboard. If you'd selected a motherboard
with a parallel port, then no problems. The Asus "workstation class" motherboards
might be one alternative, rather than a "gamer" motherboard. The
workstation motherboards are at the end of this page.

http://www.asus.com/products2.aspx?l1=3&l2=-1

P5NT WS has an Nvidia chipset and a parallel port. Plug it in, do a
repair install, and enjoy.

http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/13-131-173-03.jpg

680i LT specs are here. Also, check the reviews, because not all aspects
of this design are perfect. The more obscure a motherboard is, the fewer
BIOS updates it receives. I'm only suggesting this motherboard, because
of the large number of PCI Express lanes it offers.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce_600i_tech_specs.html

Paul

 

[M.I.5¾]

Here's the scoop: I have a new computer with an ASUS P5N32-SLI
motherboard.
This motherboard has no physical parallel ports at all. It seems to be a
new
trend. XP Pro was installed. I now need an LPT1 to interface to some
speciallized IC programming equipment, so I added a MosChip Technoloy
SY-PIO9835-2S1P PCI card which has 2 COM ports and 1 LPT port. When
installation was complete,
the parallel port was added as LPT3. The specialized hardware cannot
communicate on LPT3, so I need this physical parallel port to be
reinstalled
as LPT1. In the Device Manager under Ports (COM & LPT), only COM1, LPT3,
COM3, and COM4 exist. The latter 3 are from the MosChip Technology PCI
card.
LPT3 cannot be changed to LPT1 on the resources tab because the "Setting
Based ON", "Use Automatic Settings", and "Change Settings" controls are
all
greyed out and inoperative. Is this because all 3 LPT ports are though to
exist already, so you can't change one? Under Printers and FAXs, the
properties for any given printer allows assignement to any of the 3
parallel
ports LPT1, LPT2, and LPT3. This suggests Windows thinks they exist. A
regedit search of the registry keys shows that all 3 LPT ports are listed
under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE >> Software >> Microsoft >> Windows NT >> Current
Version >> Ports. I do not know why LPT1 and LPT2 are listed here if they
do
not exist. Is this why the first real LPT port installed itself as LPT3?
How should I correct this? Should I uninstall LPT3, then delete the LPT1
and
LPT2 registry keys from the registry location above, and lastly reinstall
the
new physical LPT port? Will this make it come up as LPT1? Are there any
downside risks or considerations to doing this?

It is quite possible that the southbridge chip on the motherboard has the
physical ports implemented on the chip but they are just not connected to a
connector at the back of the motherboard. It would be worth going into the
BIOS setup and seeing if the LPT ports are mentioned there and if it is
possible to reassign them to another LPT number. From my own past
experience, disabling the LPT1: port without reassigning its number won't
get you off the hook, because the port will still exist. Depending on the
BIOS, the port may be installed (possibly why it's present in the registry),
but will either show in device manager as a working port; a problem port
(with exclamation mark) or does not appear at all.

For the LPT2: port, you should be aware that a legacy type of sound card, a
Covox, required the existence of a LPT2: port for its operation (even though
it didn't actually communicate through it - don't ask me why). If you have
a sound card that supports Covox sound (many older ones did, though I
personally haven't seen it on any sound card produced in the last 8 years -
doesn't mean it isn't there, several cards in my junk box support it), then
it may have a dummy LPT2: port for Covox compatibility. it should be
possible to disable it if a genuine LPT2: port exists (as the ovox sound
will work if a genuine port is present, even if it it used to run a
printer). It should also be possible to disable it if no such real LPT2:
port exists, but of course, Covox compatibility will be lost. As hardly
anything used Covox sound, you are unlikely to be incommoded (I believe a
few legacy Disney titles briefly supported it - I also believe Disney
produced their own version of it known as the Disney Thingey (?)).