Difference between revisions of "Talk:83Plus:OS:84 Plus USB Information"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: I'm doing my testing on an 84PSE, by the way. I assume everything about the regular 84P is the same, but I don't have one to check. The CBL2 has to fit in there somewhere. I have one in Ann Arbor, so when I go back there I'll check the PID. This code (that looks for 0008, etc) isn't necessarily the total "allowed" list either, as the code that checks for Vernier devices is elsewhere, it's just some random code that I stumbled upon and thought I'd mention, even though I wasn't planning on checking into the details at the moment. --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 11:32, 27 May 2005 (PDT) | : I'm doing my testing on an 84PSE, by the way. I assume everything about the regular 84P is the same, but I don't have one to check. The CBL2 has to fit in there somewhere. I have one in Ann Arbor, so when I go back there I'll check the PID. This code (that looks for 0008, etc) isn't necessarily the total "allowed" list either, as the code that checks for Vernier devices is elsewhere, it's just some random code that I stumbled upon and thought I'd mention, even though I wasn't planning on checking into the details at the moment. --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 11:32, 27 May 2005 (PDT) | ||
::Alright, throw that theory out the window. :D --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 12:02, 27 May 2005 (PDT) | ::Alright, throw that theory out the window. :D --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 12:02, 27 May 2005 (PDT) | ||
| + | :By the way, the 0008 vs E008 has a simple explanation: I was typing up the page at 6 AM and my brain wasn't working very well. I meant E008, E00F, and E003. Oops :) --[[User:Dan Englender|Dan Englender]] 12:39, 27 May 2005 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:39, 27 May 2005
I read the bit about device PIDs and theorized that the 89T was the 000F that it rejected... I hooked it up to my computer and it reported PID=E004, which isn't even an option from what he said. Also, in #wikiti: <+Kalimero> exactly, and 84P has pid E008, which makes me think that it drops the E for OnTheGo transfers.. That explains that, but not what the other devices are. I think it'd be safe to theorize that the ViewScreen adapter would be "allowed", but... Didn't it come out after the calculators, so it would have a higher PID? Hold on, I just had another idea in #wikiti: <Andy_J> looking at the PIDs, it would seem that the 84+SE might be 0003, then the 89T would be 0004, then some mysteries, and the 84+ being 0008... maybe they originally planed to just have the 84+SE? So if that were the case, what are 0005 through 0007? Just some random ideas to throw out there. --AndyJ 08:11, 27 May 2005 (PDT)
- I'm doing my testing on an 84PSE, by the way. I assume everything about the regular 84P is the same, but I don't have one to check. The CBL2 has to fit in there somewhere. I have one in Ann Arbor, so when I go back there I'll check the PID. This code (that looks for 0008, etc) isn't necessarily the total "allowed" list either, as the code that checks for Vernier devices is elsewhere, it's just some random code that I stumbled upon and thought I'd mention, even though I wasn't planning on checking into the details at the moment. --Dan Englender 11:32, 27 May 2005 (PDT)
- Alright, throw that theory out the window. :D --AndyJ 12:02, 27 May 2005 (PDT)
- By the way, the 0008 vs E008 has a simple explanation: I was typing up the page at 6 AM and my brain wasn't working very well. I meant E008, E00F, and E003. Oops :) --Dan Englender 12:39, 27 May 2005 (PDT)
