Tardis issue on 64-bit - NTP

This is a discussion on Tardis issue on 64-bit - NTP ; Hello I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it looks like ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Tardis issue on 64-bit

  1. Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Hello

    I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!


  2. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    mzamborini@gmail.com wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    > get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    > Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    > looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    > product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!
    >



    Er. . . . Refresh my memory! What is "Tardis" besides Dr. Who's time
    machine?

  3. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit


    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    news:59ydnfYOu_Rz74TYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > mzamborini@gmail.com wrote:
    > > Hello
    > >
    > > I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    > > get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    > > Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    > > looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    > > product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!
    > >

    >
    >
    > Er. . . . Refresh my memory! What is "Tardis" besides Dr. Who's time
    > machine?


    http://www.kaska.demon.co.uk/tardis.htm

    Brian



  4. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > mzamborini@gmail.com wrote:
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    >> get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    >> Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    >> looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    >> product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Er. . . . Refresh my memory! What is "Tardis" besides Dr. Who's
    > time machine?


    A Windows implementation of (S)NTP.

    http://www.kaska.demon.co.uk/

    David



  5. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    mzamborini@gmail.com wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    > get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    > Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    > looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    > product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!
    >


    I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    anything about it. Have you contacted the support people for Tardis?

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  6. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    > anything about it.


    Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.

    I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if we
    collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects here
    then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.

  7. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Jan Ceuleers wrote:
    > Danny Mayer wrote:
    >
    >> I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    >> anything about it.

    >
    >
    > Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
    >
    > I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if we
    > collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects here
    > then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.



    If you look at the traffic here, maybe one percent is about the
    protocol. Ninety percent is about how to use, configure, troubleshoot,
    etc, the reference implementation. I could argue that the group is
    misnamed!

    Perhaps we should also support Open NTP, W32TIME, etc?

    It looks as if Tardis is a commercial product. As such, it should have
    its own technical support.


  8. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
    news:BN6dnX0h9OgAI4bYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > Jan Ceuleers wrote:
    >> Danny Mayer wrote:


    >>> I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    >>> anything about it.

    >>
    >> Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
    >>
    >> I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if
    >> we collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects
    >> here then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.

    >
    > If you look at the traffic here, maybe one percent is about the
    > protocol. Ninety percent is about how to use, configure, troubleshoot,
    > etc, the reference implementation. I could argue that the group is
    > misnamed!
    >
    > Perhaps we should also support Open NTP, W32TIME, etc?


    Nobody can force 'us'. But OpenNTP folks might drop in and answer
    questions about it, and personally I would welcome them.


    > It looks as if Tardis is a commercial product. As such, it should
    > have its own technical support.


    This is a valid but orthogonal point. Incidentally, w32time is also
    part of a commercial product.

    Technical support for commercial products might _also_ drop in and answer
    questions about them, and the nice folks from Meinberg for example _are_
    being welcomed here.

    Groetjes,
    Maarten Wiltink



  9. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Jan Ceuleers wrote:
    >> Danny Mayer wrote:
    >>
    >>> I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    >>> anything about it.

    >>
    >>
    >> Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
    >>
    >> I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if
    >> we collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects
    >> here then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.

    >
    >
    > If you look at the traffic here, maybe one percent is about the
    > protocol. Ninety percent is about how to use, configure, troubleshoot,
    > etc, the reference implementation. I could argue that the group is
    > misnamed!
    >
    > Perhaps we should also support Open NTP, W32TIME, etc?
    >
    > It looks as if Tardis is a commercial product. As such, it should have
    > its own technical support.


    It is. That's why I recommended that they go to the vendor's support.

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  10. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    In article "Richard
    B. Gilbert" writes:
    >Jan Ceuleers wrote:
    >> Danny Mayer wrote:
    >>
    >>> I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    >>> anything about it.

    >>
    >>
    >> Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
    >>
    >> I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if we
    >> collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects here
    >> then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.


    Absolutely agreed.

    >If you look at the traffic here, maybe one percent is about the
    >protocol. Ninety percent is about how to use, configure, troubleshoot,
    >etc, the reference implementation.


    So what? That is no basis for rejecting other posts that are relevant to
    NTP the protocol. Rather the opposite in fact - if the group had a huge
    volume with discussions about lots of different implementations, it
    could be an argument for a split into implementation-specific
    (sub)groups, but this is clearly not the case.

    >Perhaps we should also support Open NTP, W32TIME, etc?


    This is not a support forum, it's a Usenet discussion group - anyone is
    welcome to submit questions, answers, or general ramblings, as long as
    they are on topic. If you feel that you participate here with some
    obligation to "support" the reference implementation, that's fine, but
    it has no bearing on what constitues valid posting topics.

    >It looks as if Tardis is a commercial product. As such, it should have
    >its own technical support.


    And just because you paid money for something, you are forbidden from
    asking questions about it on Usenet? I don't know anything about Tardis,
    but in many cases support is an add-on cost, and seldom worth the money.
    Usenet is full of questions and discussion about commercial software.

    --Per Hedeland
    per@hedeland.org

  11. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Jan Ceuleers wrote:

    > Danny Mayer wrote:
    > > I don't know why you are asking about Tardis here. We don't know
    > > anything about it.

    >
    > Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
    >
    > I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if we
    > collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects here
    > then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.


    Perhaps gatewaying between the newsgroup and the ISC ntp:questions
    mailing-list should be discontinued?

    --
    Ronan Flood
    working for but not speaking for
    Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
    (which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)

  12. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    The entire purpose for questions@ is to provide a gateway to this newsgroup
    for people who do not have Usenet access.

    I'm happy to discuss changing the name of that email list, and I am
    disinclined to have further "fractionalization" of these channels without
    really good reason.

    H
    --
    >>> In article , Ronan Flood writes:


    Jan Ceuleers wrote:
    >> Probably because this is comp.protocols.time.ntp, not comp.apps.ntpd.
    >>
    >> I know that this does not change the reality of the situation, but if we
    >> collectively stopped discouraging non-ntpd but NTP-related subjects here
    >> then perhaps this group could in time live up to its name.


    Ronan> Perhaps gatewaying between the newsgroup and the ISC ntp:questions
    Ronan> mailing-list should be discontinued?


  13. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    On 2006-09-28, Ronan Flood wrote:

    > Perhaps gatewaying between the newsgroup and the ISC ntp:questions
    > mailing-list should be discontinued?


    Severing the current gateway would only serve to shut out those who
    prefer to use the mailing list instead of Usenet. You're not seriously
    suggesting that we shut the door on some of our users, are you?

    Anyone who wishes to pretend that the gateway does not exist merely has
    to kill-file articles containing the gateway's Organization header or
    the X-beenthere header.

    BTW: This thread started with a Usenet article, not a gatewayed mailing
    list message. So severing the gateway would have had no effect in this
    case.

    --
    Steve Kostecke
    NTP Public Services Project - http://ntp.isc.org/

  14. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    In article Steve Kostecke
    writes:
    >On 2006-09-28, Ronan Flood wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps gatewaying between the newsgroup and the ISC ntp:questions
    >> mailing-list should be discontinued?


    [snip]

    >BTW: This thread started with a Usenet article, not a gatewayed mailing
    >list message. So severing the gateway would have had no effect in this
    >case.


    Only speculating of course, but I suspect Ronan's comment addressed the
    problem of the ``this doesn't belong "here" as it doesn't concern the
    reference implementation'' responses rather than the original posting.
    Which is probably a valid point - I would expect that those
    participating via the mailing list have a higher "reference
    implementation bias" - but I still think the gateway is a Good
    Thing(tm) (especially since you fixed it - thanks again - btw where is
    Brad these days?:-).

    --Per Hedeland
    per@hedeland.org

  15. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    In article , Per Hedeland wrote:
    > ...
    >So what? That is no basis for rejecting other posts that are relevant to
    >NTP the protocol.


    The original post was

    >I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    >get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    >Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    >looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    >product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!


    Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see anything protocol
    related there.

    --
    -- Rod --
    rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

  16. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Rod Dorman wrote:
    > In article , Per Hedeland wrote:
    >> ...
    >> So what? That is no basis for rejecting other posts that are relevant to
    >> NTP the protocol.

    >
    > The original post was
    >
    >> I downloaded the latest version of Tardis for 64-bit and am unable to
    >> get it to open it's console from control panel. I'm running 64-bit
    >> Windows 2003 Enterprise. It's wierd, because if I run the debug, it
    >> looks like it's running, I just can't open the console window to the
    >> product. If I install it on a 32-bit OS, I have no issues at all!

    >
    > Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see anything protocol
    > related there.
    >


    Can we move on? My remark was due to the fact that Tardis is a
    commercial product and the first place one should turn to is the support
    people for the product in question. If you don't get a useful response
    you can turn to other resources and ask for other help. There's no
    hidden agenda here, just a recommendation to first try the most likely
    place that should have an answer to the question.

    Danny

    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  17. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    Rod Dorman wrote:
    []
    > Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see anything protocol
    > related there.


    ... as is the case with, perhaps, 90% or more of the posts here.

    I've run Tardis successfully on 32-bit systems, but not on 64-bit OSes, so
    unfortunately I can't help the OP.

    David



  18. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    In article <451D8011.7090802@ntp.isc.org>,
    mayer@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:

    > Can we move on? My remark was due to the fact that Tardis is a
    > commercial product and the first place one should turn to is the support
    > people for the product in question. If you don't get a useful response


    I also sympathise with the idea that commercial (including shareware
    in this case) should not be able to rely on peer support groups to avoid
    their responsibility to support the product.

    Moreover, in this case, it seems to me that the only possible
    justification for using the product is the commercial support (or, maybe,
    an install process that is so easy that no support is required), as
    W32Time undermines it at the low end, and especially as the marketing hype
    gives no hint that it implements NTP as againt SNTP, the free reference
    implementation is more capable for users requiring real performance.
    It had a use on 16 bit Windows, which wasn't a suitable platform for
    the reference implementation.

    I suppose what might be wanted here is a GUI front end to ntpdc and ntpq,
    or rather their corresponding control packets. Doing GUI frontends tend
    to be what commercial suppliers are good at, rather than doing the core
    protocols.

    > you can turn to other resources and ask for other help. There's no


    Although you will probably be told to use Microsoft's bundled software
    or the, free, reference implementation.

    Incidentally, in relation to the recent security threads, the hype does
    make a positive feature of being both client and server.

    Note that for all but the latest version of Windows, W32Time is a broken
    SNTP, but it is still good enough for people with simple requirements.

  19. Re: Tardis issue on 64-bit

    On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:44:25 +0000 (UTC),
    per@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:

    > Only speculating of course, but I suspect Ronan's comment addressed the
    > problem of the ``this doesn't belong "here" as it doesn't concern the
    > reference implementation'' responses rather than the original posting.
    > Which is probably a valid point - I would expect that those
    > participating via the mailing list have a higher "reference
    > implementation bias" - but I still think the gateway is a Good
    > Thing(tm) [...]


    Quite so.

    --
    Ronan Flood
    working for but not speaking for
    Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
    (which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)

+ Reply to Thread