BBS on Vista

As I understand it, the BBS software treats the hardware a little like a server from which to pull data ... the same way you pull data from this forum, by logging into it and making requests against it.

I personally reckon that BBS should move towards the hardware acting like a proper IP network location / web page which presents itself on its own network / wireless network. That way, ANY machine that can attach to the network and read web pages would be able to get at the faultmate and be able to diagnose and work on the car.

Imagine it. You're stranded, but you have a new Wireless Faultmate. Instead of having a full laptop, you could simply plug in the fault mate to the car, once its powered up, you take out your phone , look for wireless networks, find the faultmate one, login , go to the faultmate homepage, and taadaa ... there is the faultmate screen. Do all the diagnostic stuff, and log out. Or do the same with a laptop, or PC, or ANY device that can do wireless browsing.

What could be simpler? It would also pretty much eliminate any OS issues and mean it could work across Vista, Win7, MacOS, Linux, iPhone/iPod, Archos, Mobile phones ... the list goes on.

It'll never happen. I'll shut up and get me coat.

I also am now using Vista myself on a new HP HDX 18T laptop, with 64 bit OS version. I also set up wireless coms on Vista last week for a customer on Vista 32 bit.
As long as you can set up the access / security settings of the OS for running the VE as well as any drivers, eg USB to serial, its a cinch.

Hiya fisha long time no speak, how ya doin chap?

You seem to have a better than avarage grasp of our systems fundamentals and there sure is no reason for you to want to get yer coat here chap. We welcome all input.

The reason we use a server is to create an environment which is totally linear in proccessing and under our total control.
See under windows etc, which is a multi threaded OS, its the OS that decides what the processor is doing at any point in time.

So if you write an app that needs to time 130 micro seconds, you have no way to guarantee that at 120 microseconds in, any multi tasking / multi threading OS wont whisk the processor away for 20, 30 or 40 micro seconds to check for mail or if some blue tooth device has come in range etc, which results in inaccurate timing. The same happens in a linear OS if you add in TSR's such as those needed to support IP networking. you start your timing and 120 micro seconds in an interrupt pulls the processor away for 40 microseconds to handle an incoming data packet.

As you will have noted, early systems in particular, such as the EAS are quite sensitive to such subtle timing variations, and so we adopted our server technology as our particular solution to make our system the most releable it could be.
Times are changing however and we respect that, our latest MSV-2 servers for example now sport a 16 bit 300 MHZ CPU in liu of the 8 bit 33 MHZ CPU of our earlier servers, and it is likely that these would support more up to date IP based comms from the Host PC with no real detrimental effect, however our software development has of course to be back compatible.

So please believe me, while i really do share your vision of the future, and i cannot agree more, and really do not want to be seen as some closed door, please also try to appreciate that there are other aspects i must consider that are not immediately apparant to everyone.

I am not some know it all geninus by any stretch of the imagination, i do the best i can with the knowledge and understanding i possess and i long for the day when someone can teach me a better way, But as it stands at present, i hate more than anyone that our system starts off with poeple needing to shell out near 200 quid on hardware that can, despite our very best efforts, go wrong and worse still cost XYZ to ship back if it does, and i really can appreciate why people wish there were just a simple way to get their seemingly ultra capable PC's to do the job with cheaper hardware, but i know no more cost effective and reliable and dependable way to provide what we already do that covers all the timing quirky ECU's that we cover and i draw solice from the fact that anyone else that can provide anything like what we do software wise, seems to do with only with more expensive hardware.

WaveyDavey

In all due respect, i understand your comments
but we agreed only to supply you with a diagnostic system, nothing more.
We gave you the specified hardware and operating system compatibility on which our software runs.
This is no more or less than Land Rovers own Diagnostic equipment does.

We certainly did not agree that we would teach you how to use your own particular choice of operating system or how to modify it so our software might possibly run on it. To do so would set a president that would do nothing but escalate. However as you well know, on our forum are many people who have offered you help.
And as Nsxxtreme says, who does seem so very well clued up on the situation, thanks chap, and as i have tried to explain at great length on the subject, it's got absolutely nothing to do with us or our software.

You might not like me for saying that, but please try to appreciate that i am just telling it like it is.

You make 500 GBP sound expensive and it sure is if you compare our product to a cheap and common enough scan tool, if however you compare our product to anything that has a fraction of its capability then it is actually extremely cheap.

But then i guess you already know that, which is perhaps why you bought it instead of something cheaper.

Perhaps you might just consider some alternate trains of thought.
You currently appear to think about your Faultmate like it is some kind of add on peripheral toy that is an accessory to your particular choice of PC. That is understandable, after all your MSV-2 probably costs less than a good number of Laptops these days.
However try to consider that the vast percentage of our owners do not think like that at all. A good many buy our system and then chose a suitable PC to run the software on and they use it for nothing or little else.

waveydavey said:

Thanks loads; that has me much closer than I have managed yet; the rest of the screen changes when I run VE.
I had tried Win 98 compatibility but not XP.

What I can't do is check to run as administrator; I am the only user and as such am am administrator but I can't check it and it still doesn't quite work.

Thanks again though; with Due respects to Colin this is what upset me with BBS; having shelled out about £500 they insist on archaic systems and refuse to even help this much with Vista.

Click to expand...

Have you not seen the Mac comercials where the PC has to ask the user if its sure it wants to execute every task?

1. Open the Local Security Policy editor.
2. In the left pane, click on Local Policies.
3. Click on Security Options.
4. In the right pane, double click on User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode.
5. To Elevate Administrators Privilege Level for no Prompting by UAC -
NOTE: When you elevate the administrator accounts privilege level, the Security Center will give you an alert warning notification in the notification area of the taskbar until you undo this.
A) Click on the drop down arrow and change the setting to Elevate without prompting.
B) Go to step 8.
6. To Have UAC Prompt Administrators for a Password -
NOTE: This will act just like it does in a Standard account by UAC asking you for the administrator password before continuing.
A) Click on the drop down arrow and change the setting to Prompt for credentials.
B) Go to step 8.
To Have UAC Prompt Administrators for a Continue -
NOTE: This is the default setting for UAC asking the administrator to click on Continue to give permission.
A) Click on the drop down arrow and change the setting to Prompt for consent.
8. Click on OK to apply.
9. Close the Local Security Policy window. Your Done.

You can also google "UAC vista" to get more information