Well I found a solution that works for me. I recreated the bluetooth
connection and let it selected whatever port it wanted to, I went to control
panel and then clicked the 'system' icon
clicked on the 'hardware' tab
clicked 'device manager'
went under 'ports' and
right clicked on the bluetooth connection and went to properties. Under the
'advanced' tab I clicked on each com port marked 'in use' that I knew was not
and changed the bluetooth connection to each of those ports one by one. This
clears the port of being marked 'in use'. When I finished I selected the
port I wanted the bluetooth connection on and I rebooted the machine and all
of the ports are know free and my connection is on the port I want it on.
I know you are looking for something more automated, but that's what I came
up with.
"Bob I" wrote:
> Remove them in Device Manager.
>
> MartyG wrote:
>
> > When windows detects a device on a USB port it runs the found new hardware
> > wizard and puts information in the registry. If I have a parade of devices
> > with unique serial numbers the registry grows and grows with clutter. The
> > problem is even worse when the devices are USB to serial devices that are
> > assigned the next available COM port as well. I have avoided the problem in
> > my test by not allowing the device to re-register with windows after
> > assigning a unique serial number. However if the device is re-tested it will
> > want to run the found new hardware wizard and add to the registry.
> >
> > Again my question is how do I clean out the unwanted clutter from the
> > registry and clear COM ports tagged as in-use? It does not seem wise to just
> > guess at what registry values apply and start hacking with regedit.
> >
> > Is there an elegant way to undo what the found new hardware wizard does?
> > Is there a place to find out what is changed in the registry if I have to do
> > it the hard way, (especially where COM ports are flagged as in-use)?
> >
> > "Patrick Keenan" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Alphaxi" <Alphaxi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6337D9D2-1685-41B2-832E-0582B4E92564@microsoft.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"MartyG" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I have a hardware test project where I connect USB to Serial devices to
> >>>>my
> >>>>computer. The devices have unique serial numbers and so each time
> >>>>different
> >>>>device is plugged into my USB the New Hardware Wizard launches and
> >>>>assigns
> >>>>the next available COM port number to the device. There are two things I
> >>>>want
> >>>>to do:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) I want to free up COMxx port numbers consumed by devices I will not
> >>>>see
> >>>>again.
> >>
> >>Why would you expect Windows to know what devices you will not see again?
> >
> >
> > I know the devices are gone for good and I want to pass this gem of
> > knowledge on to windows to remove clutter and free consumed resources.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>>2) I want to control the assignment of COM port numbers in some automated
> >>>>way (via my test software) to assign the port number I want.
> >>
> >>That would be a feature of the test software, which is telling Windows what
> >>port to create. Windows is not dictating the port number, except for
> >>blocking in-use ports.
> >
> >
> > Windows does indeed choose the next available port without asking any
> > advice. I can reassign the port to a lower number and ignore the warning but
> > mostly I want to be able to clean the clutter out that has already collected.
> >
> >
> >>Properly designed software should remove the virtual port when it shuts
> >>down. It should not orphan those ports.
> >>
> >>You might consider contacting the publisher of the test software for a
> >>solution, since it is the behavior of *that* software that you're asking
> >>about, not Windows. Windows is just doing what it's told to do.
> >
> >
> > The problem I am having is independent of any software other than windows.
> > The port itself is not left open. The add hardware wizard leaves stuff in the
> > registry that I would like to clean out. Are the registry mods known only to
> > the author of the device driver?
> >
> >
> >>HTH
> >>-pk
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am having the exact same problem, has anyone responded?
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
