EcuFlash ?
EcuFlash ?
I went to the Open Ecu site to download the ECUFlash software.
My question is will it run on a Windows NT machine?
I am getting a free laptop that has that as the OS.
It is an old laptop, running a Pentium II processor so updating to XP is probably out of the question.
Thanks in advance
My question is will it run on a Windows NT machine?
I am getting a free laptop that has that as the OS.
It is an old laptop, running a Pentium II processor so updating to XP is probably out of the question.
Thanks in advance
Its not going to work that well. I tried using ecuflash with a 350mhz laptop using windowsxp and because the laptop was slow.....not sure what bus (I think backside) usb rides, but because the usb seemingly bogged, we had some issues. I think because it has trouble sustaining the speeds that ecuflash needs....
I dunno, I'm not much of a tech anymore.
I dunno, I'm not much of a tech anymore.
the software requires .net, which isn't available for NT, if i remember right.
if your can find a copy of win2000 somewhere, it should work - .net can be installed on 2k for sure, and 2k will run easily on that box (it's been on my PII266 laptop since, well, 2000). XP on that kind of hardware would never cut it for this, not sure what .net under win2k would do. maybe i'll try it, just for giggles.
either way. i don't know is how well the logging software will work on a system that slow- a few guys have tried and gotten pretty useless logging speeds. i would think that by really optimizing your laptop ( i.e. making sure NOTHING is running except evoscan), and really optmizing the software logging speed (there are notes on this in the documentation- stuff like not logging to screen can make a big difference on an old box) you might get decent results. i think the USB or other bus speeds have less to do with people's poor results than this.
lot of work to go through, really. i'm one of those sickos who attempts this kind of crap for fun. until recently, i still had one of our main corporate mail servers running on unix on a mac quadra 650- that's the equivalent of a 486/33, blistering white-hot performance circa 1994.
if it wasn't for the spam load which finally started to overwhelm it, i'd still be running it...
</nostalgia>
anyway, point is that i'm not sure if it's worth it unless you really have no other options, like to tinker with decrepit hardware, and have lots of time to burn while trying.
if your can find a copy of win2000 somewhere, it should work - .net can be installed on 2k for sure, and 2k will run easily on that box (it's been on my PII266 laptop since, well, 2000). XP on that kind of hardware would never cut it for this, not sure what .net under win2k would do. maybe i'll try it, just for giggles.
either way. i don't know is how well the logging software will work on a system that slow- a few guys have tried and gotten pretty useless logging speeds. i would think that by really optimizing your laptop ( i.e. making sure NOTHING is running except evoscan), and really optmizing the software logging speed (there are notes on this in the documentation- stuff like not logging to screen can make a big difference on an old box) you might get decent results. i think the USB or other bus speeds have less to do with people's poor results than this.
lot of work to go through, really. i'm one of those sickos who attempts this kind of crap for fun. until recently, i still had one of our main corporate mail servers running on unix on a mac quadra 650- that's the equivalent of a 486/33, blistering white-hot performance circa 1994.
if it wasn't for the spam load which finally started to overwhelm it, i'd still be running it...
</nostalgia>
anyway, point is that i'm not sure if it's worth it unless you really have no other options, like to tinker with decrepit hardware, and have lots of time to burn while trying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



