1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

redirect keyboard press

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by J de Boyne Pollard, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. o> My uncle is 40 years old and he plays World Of Warcraft game
    o> for 2-3 years and he still complain about his keyboard press
    o> speed ability. That's why he would like to have some kind of
    o> pedals ( like this in car ) to make some functions in WOW
    o> thanks to legs. I know this is funny case.

    Then what you know is wrong. As I pointed out before, this is well-
    trodden ground. Lots of people have already had this idea, and as a
    consequence you can _buy_ devices that do exactly this. A Google
    search for "usb", "keyboard", and "pedal" will turn up a range of
    items for various uses, from foot pedals for transcription typists
    that generate fixed "stop"/"play"/"rewind" keys (One company even
    publishes soldering instructions for connecting the pedals for
    existing microcassette transcription units to PCs.) to fully
    programmable foot pedals from the likes of P.I. Engineering, Bilbo
    Innovations, and Kinesis Corporation.
     
    J de Boyne Pollard, Sep 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I wonder was there any nicer way you could have opened this post?
     
    Ciaran Keating, Sep 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. J de Boyne Pollard

    Bob Eager Guest

    For most people, yes. But not for Mr JdBP, who considers himself so far
    above the rest of us that he is entitled to behave as he likes. This
    goes back years...do a search.
     
    Bob Eager, Sep 12, 2007
    #3
  4. No need - I'm familiar with his style. Normally I avoid responding to
    meanies, but sometimes I just flip.
     
    Ciaran Keating, Sep 13, 2007
    #4
  5. o> I know this is funny case.

    JdeBP> Then what you know is wrong. As I pointed out before, this is
    JdeBP> well-trodden ground. Lots of people have already had this
    idea,
    JdeBP> and as a consequence you can _buy_ devices that do exactly
    JdeBP> this. [...]

    CK> I wonder was there any nicer way you could have opened this post?

    Possible, but unlikely. Telling someone that they aren't the funny
    case that they think they are but are in fact perfectly normal and
    doing something that a lot of other people are doing and have done
    before them is fairly nice in most people's books.
     
    J de Boyne Pollard, Sep 13, 2007
    #5
  6. Your opening sentence didn't say that. It was a gratuitous put-down.
    That's what bothered me. I should say that generally I appreciate the
    information hidden in your posts, but half the time it's too much trouble
    to filter out the unkindness.

    I suspect that neither you nor I are particularly well in tune with most
    people's books!
     
    Ciaran Keating, Sep 14, 2007
    #6
  7. J de Boyne Pollard

    opexoc Guest

    Thanks everyone for joining to this discussion. There has been given
    many examples of doing this interface between PC and device. I will
    think out every idea in this post and decide is it possible/needed to
    make this device working or just advise my uncle to buy some ready-
    made product.

    Thanks,
    Wiktor
     
    opexoc, Sep 14, 2007
    #7
  8. JdeBP> Then what you know is wrong. As I pointed out before, this
    JdeBP> is well-trodden ground. Lots of people have already had this
    JdeBP> idea, and as a consequence you can _buy_ devices that do
    JdeBP> exactly this. [...]

    CK> I wonder was there any nicer way you could have opened this post?

    JdeBP> Possible, but unlikely. Telling someone that they aren't the
    JdeBP> funny case that they think they are but are in fact perfectly
    JdeBP> normal and doing something that a lot of other people are
    JdeBP> doing and have done before them is fairly nice in most
    JdeBP> people's books.

    CK> Your opening sentence didn't say that. It was a gratuitous put-
    down.

    No it was not; and it said _exactly_ that. Xe said that he knew that
    xe was a funny case. I said that that knowledge was wrong, and
    proceeded to point out why in the rest of the paragraph. (Always read
    the _whole_ paragraph. Not doing so is a disease endemic in Usenet.
    There are even people who won't even read a whole sentence before
    hitting a "reply" button. But this is a disease of the _reader_, not
    of the writer.) I wrote _nothing_ about xem as a person _at all_, put
    down or otherwise. Your idea about information being "hidden" is also
    wrong. This is a case in point. The information wasn't hidden in
    what I wrote. In fact, it was quite the reverse. The information was
    blatant. The information, including the names of companies that sell
    these devices and what sorts of devices can be found _was the entirety
    of what I wrote_. There _wasn't anything else there_ to hide it. The
    only way that it became hidden was when you hid it, cutting it all out
    and replying to something that wasn't even anywhere in the text
    actually written. You'll find that there are people on Usenet who
    talk about the posters rather than about the subjects. (This usually
    says more about them than it does about the people that they comment
    upon.) I have always subscribed to the philosophy of talking about
    the subjects, not the posters. It's a wise route to follow, and one
    that I and many other people recommend.
     
    J de Boyne Pollard, Sep 14, 2007
    #8
  9. J de Boyne Pollard

    Terence Guest

    It's time to point out that in Windows XP, the DOS access to the
    RS232C port is blocked.
    You have to use special software to unblock the port use inhibition
    bit. E.g. Porttalk and other software.
    I had serious problems using DOS asm and Fortran programs (that work
    on non-XP) because of this MS attempt to provide better security.
     
    Terence, Sep 29, 2007
    #9
  10. J de Boyne Pollard

    Arno Wagner Guest

    This does provide better security? Seems to me it mainly provides
    an annoyance.

    Arno
     
    Arno Wagner, Sep 29, 2007
    #10
  11. How Fortran programs can access ports?
     
    Maxim S. Shatskih, Sep 30, 2007
    #11
  12. T> It's time to point out that in Windows XP, the DOS access to the
    T> RS232C port is blocked.
    T> You have to use special software to unblock the port use inhibition
    T> bit. E.g. Porttalk and other software.
    T> I had serious problems using DOS asm and Fortran programs (that
    work
    T> on non-XP) because of this MS attempt to provide better security.

    AW> This does provide better security? Seems to me it mainly
    AW> provides an annoyance.

    It's little to do with security. That was a mischaracterization in
    the above. It's to do with virtualization. DOS programs running on
    Windows NT run in virtual machines. Access to hardware by those
    programs is virtualized. Security is involved, inasmuch as on Windows
    NT a system administrator can control which users can access hardware
    devices. But also involved is the fact that the application paradigm
    of having one's own low-level code to manipulate the hardware directly
    at the level of chip registers and interrupt service routines is
    simply not a good fit for most operating systems.
     
    J de Boyne Pollard, Oct 16, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.