fpga's for b-box was Re: Whither goest DOS?

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Dennis Dunn <dunn@c...> wrote:
> I am basically just a lurker that has been following this thread. I
have
> NO CNC experience whatsoever. So maybe this comment is totally off
the
> wall, but ...
>
> What about using FPGAs as a compromise between dedicated fast but
> inflexible HW and flexible but slow SW?
>
> -Denny
>
> ballendo wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I'm both for, and against "hardware assistance", as my recent
posts
> > attest. My answers are numbered to your snipped post, reposted
below
> >
> > 1)Hardware assist is an mostly an issue when it is a "closed"
system.
> > I must then rely on the factory to provide me answers. And I will
not
> > really klnow if the answers I am given are "for real", or just
cover-
> > ups to deal with product insufficiencies... Of course there is
also
> > the reality that hardware is always going to cost "something",
and as
> > Ron G mentions in a later post (I skipped ahead to get Bills
> > message), it is a GOOD solution for HIGH VOLUME products, where
the
> > development can be spread out over many units. How many cnc
> > controller apps do you think are HIGH volume?
> >
> > But it also tends to create a "lock" on what can be done,
development
> > wise. Look at flashcut, and you can see this. That is why you keep
> > telling us that when "they get there new 32 bit version out..."
Will
> > this require you to buy a new hardware box?
> >
> > A software only solution (like master5 and emc, when used for
> > steppers) can be COMPLETELY rewritten with no "cost" to the
already
> > established customers. They just load the new code, and get the
> > benefits. No updated control box to buy. Also no hardware to
design,
> > build, test, stock, repair, provide warranty for, etc. I've said
it
> > before, there's a REASON Bill G is the worlds' richest man.
> >
> > (In fairness, a WELL designed hardware box approaches this re-
> > configurability nowadays, as it can also be updated as long as its
> > underlying "architecture" is sufficient for the needed/desired
> > changes)
> >
> > The "dumber" the box is, the better is the "hardware
solution" ,IMO.
> > This is why I like Mariss's idea (at least as I presently
understand
> > it).
> >
> > As long as I'm software-only based, I can run as long as the s/w
> > platform is available. And I'll bet that 20 years from now an old
pc
> > will be easier to find than an old (replacement) flashcut box!
(for
> > when mine wears out/breaks) And flashcut may not even be around,
or
> > may not feel like supporting that "old" control box. Anyone in cnc
> > has seen this in machines from bridgeport to Camtech. Before
anybody
> > says the software may not be supported either, keep in mind that a
> > hardware failure prevents me from working. Lack of software
support
> > in the future, after I have been using it for awhile (let's keep
the
> > apples with apples, and oranges with oranges) only means I can't
do
> > NEW things...
> >
> > 2) Well, I can. Master5 runs very smoothly for me, and OpenCNC
> > (whichis expensive, but still based on windows and s/w only) is
just
> > like dedicated controls in its operation. The ABILITY is there;
only
> > the price will need to come down, which WILL happen as others
> > continue to discover how to do it with windows in s/w only.
> >
> > 3) This is not a hardware vs. software issue. Both will require
> > systems "suitable" to their needs, both now and in the future.
Linux
> > and other os's burp on graphics cards. Hardware burps on signal
> > levels, duration, and protocols. It's true, master5 on a computer
it
> > likes, sings (literally. You can hear the smoothness of the
motion in
> > the motors)
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Ballendo
> >
> > --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., CL <datac@l...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > 1)>Why is hardware assistance that big of an issue. WinDeskNC has
> > >clearly shown that it does not make the cost of a control out of
> > >reach.......
> > <snip>
> >
> > 2)>I am not sure I can say that the current Windows COntrols could
> > >run near as smoothly as Indexer.
> >
> >
> > 3)> The only thing we hear for real problems is the occasional
> > > hiccup with hardware compatibility. I can only Imagine what
kind of
> > >challenge it would be to assure operation of such a concept on
ALL
> > >hardware available. From what I know, Hardware issues may be
exactly
> > >why a "Black Box" proves to be a safer business venture. I have
> > >heard that when you have a computer it likes, it works very well.
> > >
> >
> > Addresses:
> > FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> > FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
> >
> > Post messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y...
> > Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@y...
> > Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@y...
> > List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@y..., wanliker@a...
> > Moderator: jmelson@a... timg@k... [Moderator]
> > URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
> > bill,
> > List Manager
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/