Re: Smart box / Dumb box

Ken,

Nice post!

(Snips,inserts below)

>The "smart box" vs. dumb box debate for me breaks down to $'s.
>If I can get a "smart box" for a small price differential to
>the "dumb box" bring on the "smarts". Why would you not want

more "smarts" <snip>

Agreed. If I can get what I want in a smart box for nearly the same
price as a dumb box... Why NOT a 'smart'? Well one very good reason
is that you must agree with the developers' definition of 'smarts'.
More on this below...

>However, I would like the option to tell my "smart box" -- "Ok, I
>know you're smart but in this application just pretend you're dumb --
>you're smart enough to do that, right?" Like using your PC to
>emulate a "dumb terminal". This would give you the flexibility<snip>

Ahhh. The beginning of the feature-itis which can doom the smart box,
IMO. It's pretty easy to be 'smart' in one or two areas. A LOT more
difficult to be 'smart' in LOTS of WAYS...

Be careful here. And Ken, no disrespect for the idea itself is
implied. :-)

<snip>...I gotta say "cheap & dumb" wins because all you're really

>concerned about is solving the timing and signal issues raised by
>Windows.

Exactly right. And this solution gives the developer the most
flexibility.

>The problem with "smarts-in-the-box" is it's harder to change
>the "smarts" when you want to get "smarter" (that is for those of
>use without chip "burning" hardware) so you're frozen to something
>that guaranteed you're gonna want to change in 6 months.

Actually, many products are now 'field updateable' and the "burning
hardware" is included in the basic design. But this could also be
called feature-itis! It IS one I'd push for in the 'smart box', tho!

>I'm interested in this because I'd really like to have both the
>capability to use existing CNC software and write VB stuff that can
>talk to a smart box like a printer to handle motion control.

You can run the existing CNC S/W now... No box needed, smart or dumb!

Hope this helps.

Ballendo