re: PC, Dumb box and Software

John,

(snips,inserts below)

>I have been following the threads on the dumb box versus smart box
>over the last few days with interest.
>I firmly agree with Mariss about using the PC to do the calculations
>and then rely on a cheap box to convert the signals. This open up
>questions though about the whole train as regards conforming to most
>peoples needs.

>Taking [1] first. Why do we need windows? References keep being made
>to this but taking the fact that the PC will be a machine operating
>system taking in files it can use any base system.

We don't NEED windows. People WANT windows! For a few reasons.
1) percieved or real ability to network easily. People don't want to
network a dos computer or rely on disks to transfer files. Since most
are using a windows based product for design...
2) Dos is on the out!, as far as MS is concerned (discussed in
previous posts)
3) Linux is still seen as the "techie" or "propeller-head" OS.
4) RAD (Rapid Application Development) programming tools like Delphi
and Visual Basic make Windows programming easy and fast(as long as
you do not try to get "too close to the computer". Means you work
WITH windows, and not AROUND it!)
5) comfort level and familiarity. Whether or not they'll admit it,
people like it! And they've become 'used' to it.

>The boot up time of DOS over windows is far greater and also it's
>stability. I personally can't see any reason for using windows -
>perhaps i'm missing something ?

Linux stability is legendary! Boot time only matters after a crash :-)
I've mentioned before, perception is often more important than
reality. If only we lived where the BEST products owned the
marketplace, instead of the 'best promoted'!

>Going onto [2]. From what I have seen in this list most people are
>using routers or millers with a few using lathes.

<s> and a decent look ahead to prevent burning.

>Lathes can be controlled by the same software with the exception of
>threading. Lets not leave this out in the design stage. Out of all
>the proprietary systems mentioned only Ahha has lathe threading.

Microkinetics also has threading. Look ahead will become more and
more important, IMO. We should at least have it 'scheduled' for
development and inclusion.

>This now leaves two areas of design - the software to run the PC and
>box. This need to be able to handle normal G code moves for mill,
>router and lathe, including threading. Have a decent look ahead and
>ideally a graphical screen.

This will be where the smart box can shine, IMO. Many people, using
the RAD tools above, will be able to write their own CNC control S/W.
Thus getting exactly what each desires. Also it will be easier for us
who already program to give something desired, ASSUMING the 'smart'
part is done well...

>The box then need to take these outputs and send them to the machine
>as S&D signals in real time. It may pay at this time to build in a
>plug in port into the box to take add on cards at a later date such
>as lathe threading

If the box uses modern 'bits' in its' construction, it should be
little problem to add the facility for updating the 'smarts'. I'd
even say it would be folly not to include such provisions...

>I realise that it's a chicken and egg situation but unless they are
>taken together then neither is any good without the other.
>John S

I think you'll find that if this thing gets some steam and really
starts to happen, the chickens and eggs will both arrive shortly...

Hope this helps.

Ballendo