Re: xp cnc software

> > 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?

download the manual from the www.artofcnc.ca website. Spend a few
evenings looking over the features. Maybe by the time you have that
digested the new manual with even more features will be finished.

>
> > 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.

a 1 gig machine could not be considered current or even trailing-edge
technology. I bought my 900 mhz mother baord and chip over a 16
months ago for 49.00 bucks. At the time the 1.8 was the leading
edge. You have to view computers in "dog" years (7:1) in comparison
with other machinery. I work for a large manufacturing company that
tries to squeeze every drop out of capital equipment. Heck, I think
they amortorize pencils! They have some shop equipment that is over
20 years old. They still have a few 300 and 500 mhz pentium machines
left. When it comes time to dispose of them we have to PAY a scrap
dealer to haul them off. Seems there are hazardous materials (lead
in the monitors) and you can't just toss them. Maybe we could find a
person like yourself to haul off the two or three truck loads a month
(just kidding). Even the case and power supplies are worthless since
none of the new motherboards will work with them. While there are
several options in the software controller side for DOS and LINUX the
list gets a lot smaller when you look and CAD and CAM options.
Unless you are into personal pain, doing CAD or CAM layout using a
DOS computer is not an option. Yes, you can get an old version of
MasterCAM that runs in DOS (the Windows version is not much
different) but once again the pain level is high.




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.

The sad part is that most software (like mastercam) is bound by
licensing that will not let you legally sell an old version you have
used to upgrade from so unless you can find one where they never
upgraded or never used it then a copy will be hard to come by.

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

When brand new 2.4 G motherboards and chips are selling at Fry's for
79.95 it makes the value of a slower machine even less.

>
> > 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.

You would love MasterCAM. They had logic boxes to the end of the
earth. It could take a week just to come back from a deep traverse
of the menu system!


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... :-)

Actually there has been a LOT of changes. Just getting a DOS
computer to run on a network used to be a 4 hour job (if you were
experienced and lucky). Then there were the multitudes of
proprietary file formats and each software vendor had to write their
own printer drivers....what a nightmare THAT was. You had to run one
program at a time and nothing talked to anything else. The concept
of a "clipboard" was considered space-age. Networks ran at 10mhz or
lower for the old arcnet and token ring. Then you had to try and get
access to upper memory so you could have enough conventional memory
to run the programs.

Has Windows turned into a bloated mess? Absolutely. I hate XP with
all of it's "smart" features and taking control away from the user.
In order for a software company to stay in business they need to keep
adding features so they can have a new release and get more money.
Sometimes the "features" are just bug fixes and more often they are
just lipstick on a pig, but the public demands it.

I am real appreciative of the people like the guys that did the EMC
piece, and people like Mariss, Art and more recently Les (at
sheetcam) for their vision to take a old technology and apply modern
approaches that allow us hobby guys to be able to afford to build
machines that were 6 figures a few years ago. I worked on CNC
equipment back in the 80's and it was out of the question for an
individual to own their own piece of CNC gear. You had to run those
machines two or three shifts to make them pay for themselves. Shops
had to take out loans to buy a mill with a papertape or mag tape
reader and all of the coding in g-code was done by hand.

>
> > No matter what you do, HAVE FUN!
>
> Yep! Got some hardware to sort out here now...