Connecting eMate to Windows

[Aaron]

I've been trying to connect my eMate to Win xp for about a week now. I've
got newtusb and I installed the drivers properly. I've tried using NCU and
NBU to connect to the emate. Every now and then NCU will say Connected to
Newton, but I cannot choose any of the activities. I'll try to connect again
but it doesn't connect and I try the different serial connection speeds on
the emate. I've run 2 copies of the slowdown program like it says on
wikiwikinewt. I've also turned off the FIFO buffer as well as trying the
minimum settings, but still no luck. So now i'm pretty much lost on what to
do. Anyone have any ideas?
-AC

[Tony Kan]

I use a W2k machine...

Depending on the speed of your machine you might need more copies of slowdown.
On the copies you are launching, do you have the top slider all the way to the
right?

HTH

Warm regards

Tony Kan

Christchurch
New Zealand

[snip]
I've run 2 copies of the slowdown program like it says on
wikiwikinewt.
[snip]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 27/10/2006

[Aaron]

I had both of the slowdowns and the sliders were all the way to the right. I
tried a third copy. Even though my computer was slowed down greatly, still
nothing


Depending on the speed of your machine you might need more copies of

Post by Tony Kan
slowdown.
On the copies you are launching, do you have the top slider all the way to the
right?

[Sonny Hung]

Post by Aaron
Anyone have any ideas?

Hi Aaron,

I'm not sure what the deal is with connectivity 100% with your eMate
300 is to you XP box.
I've not see the Wikkiwikki yet on this topic nor have I heard of
details which might help users at this point other than the standard,
'if you're on a PC you need to run slowdown.exe' so that ti will
connect...

I'm going to say first off that my explanation is specific to my setup
and I will detail it as well as I can and with what I think is
pertinent. Second I've also noticed IF you are using items that are
resource & processor hogs you sometimes don't have to use slowdown
because those apps have caused considerable load to you PC and it will
just work.

With that said here goes (and I hope this may help!)

PC Setup - Dell GX240 running Windows 2000 Professional with Service
Pack 4. It's got a P4 CPU at 1500mHz with 256MB of Ram. I've got a
crap load of items in the back ground at times but for this example I
wont' detail that (enough that you know there is and it ill differ on
your system with whatever you have installed that runs in the
background.

To start off I went to the taskmanager to see what was running and
then checked the CPU usage. I know that my system works even for
loading crazy large files (at least up to 1.5MB or 2MB that I've
tested such as Lexionary). The CPU usage is basically just System Idle
stabilized at 97%-98% for the most part.

I use two (2) slowdown.exe to have a stable setup. I set both
slowdown.exe's to two notches from the left side for Speed & Reaction.
When one checks the CPU usage in taskmanager it reflects 33% and 34%
respectively for each instance of slowdown.exe.

I start NCU which reflects 0% CPU Usage.

Unfortunately I can't find my Newton which is frustrating.. my brain
has been toast for awhile... maybe I will find it soon to complete the
rest of this tutorial... but suffice to say that this setup works
fine.

Post by Aaron
From what I can gather I would guess to say that since my Processor is

1500mHz and the CPU usage is around 66%-67%, then my approx. speed of
my system is running around 500mHz...

I think this might be more useful of instruction since everyone has a
different setup. Hopefully others on list can do something similar and
respond back with an approx speed of their system after slowdown.exe
is run which is a functional configuration. With this we might be able
to help others navigate this connection issue with a lot less bumps in
their path...

Aaron, give it a go...
Anyone else want to inform us what your specs are and what the CPU
usage is with slowdown.exe is and what your approx. processor speed is
afterwards.

I hope I've put something new on the table. I don't recall anyone
suggesting anything else other than running (multiple) instances of
slwodown.exe and suggesting people just adjust it till it works...

[Aaron]

I've got a 1.4 ghz processor and 2 gigs of RAM. It turned out the connection
of the cable kept getting loose but I was able to fix that. Now the emate
will connect, but when I try to do a back up or a package install, the
connection keeps getting disconnected. I was running 4 of the slowdown
applications and it was still disconnecting. I'll try to run a few more at
the same time to see if that helps. If not, I'll be back...

[Sonny Hung]

Post by Aaron
I've got a 1.4 ghz processor and 2 gigs of RAM. It turned out the connection
of the cable kept getting loose but I was able to fix that. Now the emate
will connect, but when I try to do a back up or a package install, the
connection keeps getting disconnected. I was running 4 of the slowdown
applications and it was still disconnecting. I'll try to run a few more at
the same time to see if that helps. If not, I'll be back...

Hi Aaron,

If I've got two slowdown.exe's running (both are set to the second
notch from the left). and each is taking about 33% or 34% of the CPU
resources then my system is running at around 33% or 34% CPU
resources...

If you got four (4) slowdown.exe's running - How much CPU resources
are they taking up each? I'm trying to see if there is a way to
calibrate it by some set gauge such as the CPU resources in
TaskManager (CTRL-ALT-DEL) then (ALT-T) to start TaskManager...

This would help us get some common ground gauge to go by...
But with so much Ram (2GB) your system definitely is flying faster
than mine which has only 256MB. Are you using a swap disk or is
everything being done in Ram? if it's in Ram then it's going to be
much faster and you'll have to compensate even more I believe.

[Aaron]

I decided to give up the connectivity with the Windows machine and try it on
my g3 imac and that worked fine. After a few hours I decided to try it again
with my windows box. I was messing around and decided to run 10 slowdown.exe's
with the slider all the way to the right on each one. It actually worke. I
then tried to run 4 again and it worked... well it worked once.
After a few more experiments, it seems that I need to run 6 of the
slowdown.exe's with the sliders all the way to the right. Now I can install
packages and its seems to be good. I do have another issue, but I'll make a
new post for that.


If I've got two slowdown.exe's running (both are set to the second

Post by Sonny Hung
notch from the left). and each is taking about 33% or 34% of the CPU
resources then my system is running at around 33% or 34% CPU
resources...
If you got four (4) slowdown.exe's running - How much CPU resources
are they taking up each? I'm trying to see if there is a way to
calibrate it by some set gauge such as the CPU resources in
TaskManager (CTRL-ALT-DEL) then (ALT-T) to start TaskManager...
This would help us get some common ground gauge to go by...
But with so much Ram (2GB) your system definitely is flying faster
than mine which has only 256MB. Are you using a swap disk or is
everything being done in Ram? if it's in Ram then it's going to be
much faster and you'll have to compensate even more I believe.

[Sonny Hung]

Post by Aaron
After a few more experiments, it seems that I need to run 6 of the
slowdown.exe's with the sliders all the way to the right. Now I can install
packages and its seems to be good. I do have another issue, but I'll make a
new post for that.

Ho w much CPU Usage are you using with 6 slowdown.exe'c running?
This would greatly help others in understanding how to configure
compared with the setup you have which has a heck of a lot of memory
that you stated at 2GB right?

Please check this out as this would be a good way to try to gauge your
setup and compare it to mine to see if anything between the two can be
quantifiable so we can set a gauge to help others setup their PC's

[Aaron]

I do have 2GB of RAM. The CPU usage seems to be between 7% and 22%. The mem
usage that the 6 slowdowns are using are as followed (each has the speed
slider all the way to the right (slow) and the reaction slider all the way
to the left(fast)): 2,220K, 716k, 688k. 768k, 708k, 680k. Now if I move the
Reaction part towards the right, the CPU usages increases significantly. I,
however, did NOT have to do this.

Ho w much CPU Usage are you using with 6 slowdown.exe'c running?

Post by Sonny Hung
This would greatly help others in understanding how to configure
compared with the setup you have which has a heck of a lot of memory
that you stated at 2GB right?
Please check this out as this would be a good way to try to gauge your
setup and compare it to mine to see if anything between the two can be
quantifiable so we can set a gauge to help others setup their PC's

[Aaron]

Well the 6 slowdowns stopped working for me and I had to add another. So I
guess the range of slowdowns that I need are 6-10. Just thought I would add
that update.

Post by Aaron
I do have 2GB of RAM. The CPU usage seems to be between 7% and 22%. The
mem usage that the 6 slowdowns are using are as followed (each has the speed
slider all the way to the right (slow) and the reaction slider all the way
to the left(fast)): 2,220K, 716k, 688k. 768k, 708k, 680k. Now if I move the
Reaction part towards the right, the CPU usages increases significantly. I,
however, did NOT have to do this.

[Tony Kan]

Well done. I admire your tenacity

Cheers

Tony

[snip]
I was messing around and decided to run 10 slowdown.exe's
with the slider all the way to the right on each one. It actually worke. I
then tried to run 4 again and it worked... well it worked once.
After a few more experiments, it seems that I need to run 6 of the
slowdown.exe's with the sliders all the way to the right.
[snip]

[Alex Perez]

Post by Aaron
I decided to give up the connectivity with the Windows machine and try it on
my g3 imac and that worked fine. After a few hours I decided to try it again
with my windows box. I was messing around and decided to run 10 slowdown.exe's
with the slider all the way to the right on each one. It actually worke. I
then tried to run 4 again and it worked... well it worked once.
After a few more experiments, it seems that I need to run 6 of the
slowdown.exe's with the sliders all the way to the right. Now I can install
packages and its seems to be good. I do have another issue, but I'll make a
new post for that.
If I've got two slowdown.exe's running (both are set to the second

Post by Sonny Hung
notch from the left). and each is taking about 33% or 34% of the CPU
resources then my system is running at around 33% or 34% CPU
resources...

Hi folks

I am the happy owner of an Athlon[32] Thunderbird XP3200+, running at
2.2GHz, with 2GB of RAM, and an Nvidia NForce2 chipset.

I had simply been syncing my MP2100 and MP2000 at 9600 bps, since this
worked for me without any tweaks, but this was obviously horrendously slow.

I am now able to sync at 57,600 with 100% reliability, using a
completely free, noncommercial utility called "CPU Speed Adjuster" which
you may download at http://tinyurl.com/yex32s
which is just
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/CPU-Speed-Adjuster.shtml
the direct download link on Softpedia links to
http://www.adrianboeing.com/files/slow.exe

Using this utility, I tested about 100 iterations, finally discovering
that I could not set the desired CPU usage slider below 65% on my CPU
and get reliable transfers of very large packages (1.1MB). You only need
to load one copy of it, not six ;-) Presumably, if you have a machine
faster than 2GHz, you'll likely need to set the slider above 65% until
syncing of large files works reliably (test syncing with large packages,
as they are simply statistically more likely to induce an error)

There is, however, a more-elegant solution. The product Mo'Slo, which
has been around since the DOS days (I remember using it there) is a
damned fine Windows slowdown application, if not the finest. It actually
installs a kernel-mode driver shim into Win2K/XP which slows down the
*application* and not your CPU, by simply munching up cycles. You need
the biz/professional version, which is only USD $25, four more dollars
than the non-pro version.

I bought a copy of this software, and the nicest thing about it is that
it allows you to create a shortcut directly to NCU.exe which slows down
that one single app sufficiently, not your whole system. I am able to
reliably sync at 57600 with it.

[Alex Perez]

Post by Alex Perez
There is, however, a more-elegant solution. The product Mo'Slo, which
has been around since the DOS days (I remember using it there) is a
damned fine Windows slowdown application, if not the finest. It actually
installs a kernel-mode driver shim into Win2K/XP which slows down the
*application* and not your CPU, by simply munching up cycles. You need
the biz/professional version, which is only USD $25, four more dollars
than the non-pro version.
I bought a copy of this software, and the nicest thing about it is that
it allows you to create a shortcut directly to NCU.exe which slows down
that one single app sufficiently, not your whole system. I am able to
reliably sync at 57600 with it.

Sorry to reply to myself, but the link to the Mo'Slow4BIZ is at
http://www.hpaa.com/moslo/4biz.asp

and, if you order using the online system, you will get a download link
within a few minutes sent to your e-mail address.