Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Fwd: Emc > 0 C.

On 6/12/01 10:28 AM, "Jon Elson" <elson@...> wrote:

> Dave Engvall wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/01 10:17 AM, "Jon Elson" <elson@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Ray wrote:
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>>>> Subject: Emc > 0 C.
>>>> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:24:21 -0700
>>>> From: Dave Engvall <dengvall@...>
>>>>

>>>
>>> This sounds good. How many hours have you had it running without trouble?

About 8 hrs t the time.

>>> Which version of EMC are you running? Does TkEMC work, too, or does it
>>> freeze up?
>> After reading this I tired tkemc and it was really flaky. X couldn't even
>> display it correctly. Will try again today and try to accum some stats.
>> Stats of ones are non-existent.
>>>
>
> OK, this is the same as the results I get with my 333 MHz Pentium II (the one
> I had
> up at NAMES) with the 15-Mar-2000 EMC. I'm pretty sure I get that same
> thing with my reliable 100 MHz Pentium classic that is on my milling machine.
> I CAN use TkEMC reliably on the 100 MHz machine with the 20-Dec-1999
> version of EMC. Maybe this is a clue. (I think one of the differences is
> that
> the RT section is periodically rescheduled on 15-Mar-2000, but the interval
> rescheduled RT is used on the 20-Dec-1999. I don't know if that is
> significant,
> though.) I think there were also some major changes internal to TkEMC, and
> that
> may be closer to the problem.

A little data always helps; especially if from different sources.

>
>> I may have to try the upgrade on XF86 yet in hopes of having something work.
>> It should give me access to a couple more video boards. Will stay in touch
>> as data develops.

I was thinking xf86 4.0.x o 4.1.x almost experimental.

I did find out that doing the standard vi exit keystrokes while in genedit
does bad things. Must keep my wits about me; but this does say even xemc in
not bulletproof.

>
> Hmmm, I don't know if this will bear fruit or not. I think some people who
> are using
> late versions of Red Hat (like 6.2) have the same problems. (There are even
> newer
> XF86's than on the RH 6.2, though.) But, as Ray seems pretty convinced it is
> not just
> a simple X problem, I don't know if that will help.

Enough diverse data and we might get clue about what is really happening.

dave

>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon