Re: Keyborad repeat rate setting...?

["Patricia M. Godfrey" PriscaMG@xxxxxxxx]

M.W. Poirier wrote:
 I just moved XY4 to my new Pentium 4 computer, and I am
 getting the error message "keyboard did not accept new
 repeat rate settings".  my old machine likes the setting as
 it is: KS=0,1

 M.W. Poirier


In the instructions for U2 it says:
;
;If you use Windows:
;COMMENTED OUT because WinNT balks at it
;KS is keyboard speed: repeat rate, delay
;df ks=0,1
;
XP is an NT "flavor" of Windows (i.e., it's built on the NT
kernel--that's so, isn't it?), unlike 9x. So apparently you shouldn't
have ANY KS setting.
Then, in early Nov. 2004, we had a go round about this on the list, to
which Robert Holmgren replied:
≪Huh! Interesting. I wrote the lines above, because in NT 4.0, setting KS
caused XyWrite to crash, or freeze, IIRC (too lazy to fire up old NT4
Desktop
now -- but I did a goodly amount of experimentation with XP notebooks,
below).
As soon as I commented KS out under NT4, Editor loaded. That setting
has been
commented out in my DFL ever since -- quite a few years. But what you're
saying, Michael, seems bizarre: because if you don't touch KS -- i.e.
you do
nothing, don't try to set KS at launchtime, comment it out -- the *default*
values are 0,0 (tested Win2K and WinXP). Granted, trying to set KS
still makes
a loud protest in both 2K and XP, but it doesn't crash the program
anymore (and
you can suppress the protest per se with ...BX es 1Q2 BX d ks=0,0Q2 BX
es 0Q2
...). But there are several genuine oddities here. First, suppose you
try to
set KS to something else, e.g. "1,1" (try it). It doesn't "take": the
values
remain 0,0 (which you can prove either by embedding  or  in
text
in Draft+ mode, or by CMline command VA/NV [$]KS). It's really 0,0. You're
saying that if you command D KS=0,0 on the CMline, you see a change of
behavior
-- even though it's *already* 0,0, and CMline commands are rejected (you
cannot
set KS to anything else -- hell, the Error msg even _says_ that it isn't
accepting your input: Error 643: "Keyboard did not accept new repeat rate
settings"). Second, under XP SP2, I notice less jerkiness -- *considerably*
less. But, yes, I still see a tiny residue of it. For example, if I
hold down
the spacebar at bottom file and just create a few lines of new space
characters, it jerks a tiny bit from time to time. If I then hold down an
arrow key to move across those space characters, it jerks now and again. I
think we're on the same page here, yes? (It is nearly indiscernible to
me, and
I'm almost incredulous that anyone finds this objectionable, much less even
sees it ... however, we've been around this bend before.) But when I
manually
command D KS=0,0 on the CMline, and then do the same spacebar tricks
again, I
still see the tiniest jerkiness. No change in behavior that I can see.
These
are Desktop windows/DosBoxes, 80x25 in both Screen Buffer Size and
Window Size,
18 pt Lucida (also tried Raster), REPEAT=32 DELAY=0, XP Pro, Dell Inspiron
4100, T40p, and T41 (and also W2K T23).

I don't know if this advances the argument any, but -- those are my
observations, FWIW. I just don't believe that issuing KS=0,0 can
possibly have
any effect! I sure don't see any. If you can propose a reproducible
procedure
that proves your point, I'd like to try it.≫
Others subsequently reported that they needed to execute the command
from the command line, rather than embedding it in settings.dfl or
startup.int. But they were trying to overcome the much-discussed
screen-keyboard lag in XP.

On 11/4/04, Michael Norman replied to Robert's post as follows:
≪
I understand the purpose of the BX commands above, but I tried them in
startup anyway to see if they would *stick.* No luck. I still had to issue
default ks=0,0 from the command line. For the record, I get "Keyboard did
not accept new repeat settings" then a pause, then *done.* Then the lag
disappears.

> But there are several genuine oddities here. First, suppose you try to
>set KS to something else, e.g. "1,1" (try it). It doesn't
>"take": the values
 or 
in text
>in Draft+ mode, or by CMline command VA/NV [$]KS). It's really 0,0.

Yes, sir. I tried several combos. All reported 0,0.

>  You're
>saying that if you command D KS=0,0 on the CMline, you see a change of
>behavior
>-- even though it's *already* 0,0, and CMline commands are rejected (you
>cannot
>set KS to anything else -- hell, the Error msg even _says_ that it isn't
>accepting your input: Error 643: "Keyboard did not accept new repeat rate
>settings").

Yup. It definitely works. Leslie get the same effect.

> Second, under XP SP2, I notice less jerkiness -- *considerably*
hold
>down
>the spacebar at bottom file and just create a few lines of new space
>characters, it jerks a tiny bit from time to time. If I then hold down an
again. I
>think we're on the same page here, yes? (It is nearly indiscernible to
>me, and
even
>sees it ... however, we've been around this bend before.)

We are indeed on the same page, but my eye perhaps get more irritated that
your's by lag.

>  But when I manually
again, I
>still see the tiniest jerkiness. No change in behavior that I can see.

Hm. I think this cursor movement, movement across either a line of type or
space with the cursor key, is more affected by the mode con: settings. For
me it's the same with or without ks=0,0. Not a smooth as my W98 desktop,
but nothing I'd complain about. The real difference -- which is to say the
noticeable affect -- is when you type. Without the ks command, I get a lag,
or a bit of a leap, when you type, as if the cursor is sticking for just a
millisecond on one character before it moves and creates the next. I can
type roughly 30 wpm, fast enough to notice the effect.

>  These are Desktop windows/DosBoxes, 80x25 in both Screen Buffer Size
> and Window Size,
>18 pt Lucida (also tried Raster), REPEAT=32 DELAY=0, XP Pro, Dell Inspiron
>4100, T40p, and T41 (and also W2K T23).

My setup is the same as your's save for the fonts, which are Uwe's.

>I don't know if this advances the argument any, but -- those are my
possibly
>have
>any effect! I sure don't see any. If you can propose a reproducible
>procedure
>that proves your point, I'd like to try it.

I wish I could. All I can do is report what I see. Perhaps Leslie and
Martin can weigh in. Spent two hours last night and two tonight going back
and forth. I get small improvement with the KS command, enough to take the
trouble . Question please: is there some clue in the delay between the
error message and the *done*? Or is that meaningless?

Anyway, I'm closer to getting XyDos to work well on XP in a window than I
have been in months. As always I appreciate your time.

Michael Norman≫
There's probably a lot more on the subject, to be found by using
XySearch on the XyWWWeb site. Easeir to find there, too, since my raw
posts are littered with the IP addresses of every node on the Web that
the e-mail passed through--not to mention the duplicate test of MIMEfied
posts, and X's quoting the post he was replying to, which included y's
quoting the post she was replying to, and so ad infinitum.
We really should try and compile a faq of Best Practices for getting Xy
to run on XP. The thing is, I have a suspicion that there's a hardware
or firmware component to the problems. Some people have many, some have
none. I tried to elicit a list of who was running on what hardware and
chipsets, but didn't get enough for a representative sample. I do recall
that NO one who was having problems said that he or she was running on
an AMD CPU. And lots of the people with problems were running on Dells.
If we ever get the new XP box over at the office up and running, it's an
AMD one, and I do mean to try XyWrite and see what happens.
P.S. also search on numblock (sic; that's how several people spelled it,
I assume facetiously), as that can be a factor too.

Patricia M. Godfrey
PriscaMG@xxxxxxxx