Hi everyone.
I used IDE 1.8.16.
the port number shown 'COM7' when plugged in a Arduino UNO, but shown 'COM8' when plugged in an ESP32 board, why?
Thanks
Adam
Because Windows port assignment has been broken forever. They attempt to keep track of the device attached to the port and give it a unique number. In the later releases they are getting better - on the older releases you could end up with dozens of abandoned port numbers.
1 Like
Great.
thank you.
i usually jump on a chance to piss on windows, but...Its not broken.
@ shanren -- were you expecting the same physical usb to correlate to one and -only- one com port?
to understand why that CANT be the case, you need only consider what happens when you connect a usb hub. now you have many usb ports all connected to one physical port, how do you address them? Daisy-chaining wouldn't work unless you have a means of identifying each one.
In my experience, if I connect the same chip (uno, nano, esp32 ) to the same physical port, I get the same com port every time. from a practical stand point thats all that matters & to me, seems likes its addressing things just fine.
edit: im running win10 fyi
I said the newer versions were better. I haven't had problems with 8.1. I just got a windows 10 machine (I usually use Linux) and from your comment I expect it will work.
Go back to XP and I had it assign a new port to the same device on the same port multiple times.
as much as I liked XP (i stuck with it till the day it died), I was only just getting into arduino, so I can't speak to xp, or 8.1. Can't say I ever formally tested it on win7(my 2nd fav windows), but used it a lot & don't recall any abnormal port assignment. I still have a win7 box, I might give it a try. and as I said before, win10 seems to work fine..even on my system, which is in desperate need of a clean install.
I just assumed we were talking about win10. I should have asked the op what he working with?
I just wanted to make the point that plugging a different board into the same port & expected the same com number, was an incorrect assumption
Well we agree on what the intent was. It seems they are doing a better job of getting it right in the last few releases. I haven't used the more recent releases much and my comments were colored by previous experiences. In thinking about it, I haven't seen the problem in a while now.
I think we have more than covered the OP's question
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.