Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Interface. Gauging interest.

On Tuesday 16 May 2006 03:16 am, Jack Hudler wrote:

> Yes I do expect and demand it to do those things it is capable of doing.
> Yes that means watching a DVD or browsing the Internet or CAD'n up the next
> part, while machining parts at the same time. As long as it can supply the
> next instruction to the controller before the watchdog times out, I am
> happy.

Why is it necessary to use _one_ machine to do all this? I'm currently using
_three_ boxes to do what I'm doing here, and if I did get some machine
control setup going, I'd expect to dedicate a box to that, too. What's
with this idea that seems to be so prevalent that we can only have one
computer?

> There is absolutely no reason for a PC to be treated as an "embedded
> controller" and involved with pulse generation; it's a stupid waste of
> entropy.

Capable systems that can do well in this application are simply being trashed
all the time these days, because of the perception that they're simply not
adequate to the (non-machine) tasks that so many people seem to want to use
them for, and that's a stupid waste of hardware as far as I'm concerned.

> Windows is not a real time operating system as such; I would not
> buy some software that requires me to lobotomize it prior to installing CNC
> software.

There are some who would debate whether it's an OS at all.

> In the world of computer performance it's; memory, fast hard drive, fast
> video, and CPU last. I could careless about CPU speed; if I don't have the
> first three, what's the use.

It all depends on what you want the box to do.

> > The "problem" with using a PC as an embedded controller, is that
> > folks forget that's what they've done. Then they expect to still do
> > all the things they've done before...
> > You've exchanged an inexpensive rather large box for the more
> > expensive small box that may be a G100.
> > Treat the large box embedded controller the same as you would the
> > small box embedded controller.
> >
> > IMO THAT'S the REAL problem. Not any failing of a p-port, but rather
> > a failure in the judgement of the person using it...
> >
> > A pc behaving as a machine controller needs the same respect you'd
> > give an embedded controller like the G100. You're not going to
> > expect it to do ANYTHING besides what it was designed and installed
> > to do. When you treat it--and a pc par port--that way, it/they are
> > reliable, repeatable, and IME without incident.
> >
> > Don't do that, and the fault is with you, not the hardware.
> >
> > Ballendo

Just so.

--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin