On Jan 29, 2011, at 9:30 AM, YES NOPE9 wrote:

> Are you saying that Windows has buggy support for the CDC-ACM class =20
> and that all slave USB devices using CDC-ACM have the same problems ?

I've got a couple CDCACM devices (Arduino, Eggbot) that seem to work =20
OK with XP.  Some of the "buggy" aspects listed in the links provided =20
seemed pretty edge-case (difficulties supporting composite devices =20
where one device is CDCACM, for instance.)

> Or do some USB slave devices deal with the Windows CDC-ACM bugs =20
> better than others?

Yes.  It looks like you can fiddle with your device to make it more =20
windows compatible, sometimes at the expense of compatibility with =20
other systems.  The CDCACM code in the TI LaunchPad seems to ONLY work =20
with windows, for instance, and the experts claim that it doesn't =20
implement things correctly.

> How about FTDI.... do their products work well with the Windows CDC-=20
> ACM implementation ?

No, not at all.  FTDI has their own drivers that are NOT CDC-ACM.  =20
(The drivers themselves seem to work quite well.  I'm very impressed =20
by FTDI.)

> Does good inter-operability vary by slave device ?

yes.

BillW

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.