RE: Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!
Posted by
James Eckman
on 2000-05-04 07:14:27 UTC
The only way I know of to get around the tendency of Windows 95+ and NT
to go to sleep is to use some form of intelligence in the controller.
"Real time" NT apparently isn't. There are PC cards made by Oregon
Microsystems and the like that have large command buffers and can
perform lots of coordinated movements without PC intervention. They are
not cheap however. Other options include DOS and RTL linux, DOS can be
made to work for sure! Others in the group have had great success with
Linux.
The 5 minute install for EMC would make it vastly more popular with
hobbiests! I'd even give it a shot...
Jim
to go to sleep is to use some form of intelligence in the controller.
"Real time" NT apparently isn't. There are PC cards made by Oregon
Microsystems and the like that have large command buffers and can
perform lots of coordinated movements without PC intervention. They are
not cheap however. Other options include DOS and RTL linux, DOS can be
made to work for sure! Others in the group have had great success with
Linux.
The 5 minute install for EMC would make it vastly more popular with
hobbiests! I'd even give it a shot...
Jim
Discussion Thread
Ron Ginger
2000-05-03 07:51:59 UTC
Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!
snapscottc@y...
2000-05-03 10:38:14 UTC
Re: Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!
Carlos Guillermo
2000-05-03 11:16:15 UTC
RE: CPNC and the BOX
Pete Jarman
2000-05-03 13:02:41 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!
James Eckman
2000-05-04 07:14:27 UTC
RE: Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!
Ray Henry
2000-05-04 11:23:46 UTC
Re: Conversational Programming and NAMES- very long!