Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: xp cnc software

On Sunday 22 August 2004 11:52 am, caudlet wrote:

> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "smeboss" <c65pratt@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > Hello, I need some XP compatible cnc software. Any Ideas? I'm
> > running 1.7 Athlon, 512mb ram, and integrated video.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Charles

> Are you talking about the design and toolpath definitions or the
> actually running a machine? Those are different actions and are all
> part of CNC. There have been combinations of the magic "Triad" of
> operations but basically it's three steps: CAD, to draw the part,
> CAM, to define HOW the machine is going to cut the part (toopaths,
> offsets, feedrates, cut depths, multi-pass cuts, etc) and finally the
> Controller that takes the g-code file produced by the CAM program and
> twiddles the motors to move the machine to cut the part.

Thanks for that distinction, there, I was wondering about some of the
details and was gonna post about it some time or other.

> MACH2 is a Controller. It runs from a standard PC parallel port and
> puts out step and direction pulses that will drive the common motor
> drive modules we hobbiests can afford (Gecko, Rutex, Xylotex,
> HobbyCNC to name a few). MACH2 is written to run on WIN2000 or XP
> and has a list of features a mile long. Download a free demo at
> www.artofcnc.ca

You've got me curious when you talk about the features. But I don't run with
either of those platforms here, is that info still available in a doc file
or something, what it'll do?

> For a low cost CAM program for Windows download the free beta of
> Sheetcam at www.sheetcam.com

I know that there are a lot of windows machines out there, but...

> If you intend on using your XP computer to control your machine,
> consider having a dedicated box for just that and network it to your
> design PC(s).

This strikes me as something that's a good idea anyway, no matter what the
platform. Particularly if you're running something that allows for the use
of somewhat older hardware.

> While in theory you can use the same box for everything, a dedicated box is
> less problematic. MACH2 will run easily on a 900 or 1 Ghz machine and there
> are reports of people using 500 mhz ones.

That's part of the problem. I don't believe in being right up there on the
bleeding edge, and in recent years I've not even tried to stay anywhere near
current. All of those numbers you mention are faster than anything I have on
hand here. The box I'm typing on right now is a Celeron 366, while the
"server" the mail lives on is a K6-200! I'm sure that some nontrivial amount
of that requirement is the overhead created by the windows operating system,
which seems to get more bloated with each release. Windows 3.1 could be
installed from a handful of floppies, and I don't know that anything that's
been added to the software since then has added much that we'd want for a
machine controller. I wonder if any of these packages that are windows-only
these days have any earlier versions out there that would run on earlier
stuff? Even if unsupported that wouldn't be a bad thing.

> I use a 900MHZ AMD unit that was setting in a corner.

Whew!

> I use WIN2000 (that's just me and my choice, since I REALLY
> don't like XP) and never have problems.

I've just accumulated a number of 486 boxes as "computer junk" and am
wondering whether any of this stuff might be of use in this context. I don't
see why not, though I haven't begun to explore the software just yet. Back
when I was running mostly DOS I had no problems with logically-done software
that wasn't graphical, but presented the info the user needed in boxes on
the screen anyhow. Not much has changed since then except for all the bells
and whistles that I don't see a need for anyhow, and of course billyboy's
bank account... :-)

> No matter what you do, HAVE FUN!

Yep! Got some hardware to sort out here now...