Machsupport Forum
Mach Discussion => Mach3 under Vista => Topic started by: simpson36 on January 21, 2014, 07:37:58 AM
-
It has recently come to my attention that Tormach uses Embedded Widows XP on their CNC computer (what they call the 'controller').
It is my understanding that the Embedded OS is targeted at purpose build devices with a very limited scope. Examples might be a modem, a router, perhaps a kiosk in the mall, a variety of 'smart' products from thermostats to coffee makers, but certainly not a general purpose PC .
So I am wondering if there are any gurus out there that can provide some dialogue on this. Advantages? Disadvantages?
I have read the Tormach 'white papers' and 'engineering notes' of the thinking behind using Embedded Windows XP on their computers, but the information used to justify the move is far outdated and no longer valid relative to computer timing and interrupt issues.
-
Clarification:
My question is generic and not specifically about Tormach. That just happens to be the path by which the info came to me.
Tormach's reasons are based on information that was current WHEN they made the decision, but that information is extremely dated to the point of being pretty much meaningless.
What I would find interesting is if anyone has experience with Embedded Windows XP or later (I do not) that could shed some light on why one might choose it for a CNC controller . . . or perhaps a 4th axis controller . . (hint, hint) or and ATC controller (more hints), not in 2009, but TODAY.
I don't know enough about it to venture an educated guess on what the advantages or disadvantages might be. There are some savvy people cruising these hallways so I thought there might be some dialog available, but perhaps not. Questions about Embedded Windows OS might be equivalent to asking questions about Pascal or Cobol. Not so much that nobody knows, but that nobody cares. :)
So, this is one of those question where no answer . . is the answer.
-
I read the Tormach blurb and it seems to me that for this particular app. the "embedded" bit is not the point of interest (though I would say that it satisfies the definition). The real point is that the OS & mobo are stable and available and will continue to be so for another decade - or so they and MS say anyway.
If you look at it from a suppliers point of view it's a complete PITA that mobos/procs and the chosen OS are constantly being made obsolete almost before they're cold.
How warm and cozy it would be to have a virtually guaranteed source of an unchanging OS and mobos for the next decade.
Bottom line - as an end user you'd get a mobo and an OS that they (presumably) know works and if it goes tits up in three years time you can hold them to their blurb and buy a slot in replacement. Not something you're likely to be able to do with any confidence with a/another mobo or windoze (think of a number - any number).
You could also win admiring glances from beautiful women by telling them that your system is embedded. Me? I'd just tell them I can program in both Pascal AND COBOL...
Ian
-
Quote:
"You could also win admiring glances from beautiful women by telling them that your system is embedded. Me? I'd just tell them I can program in both Pascal AND COBOL..."
Let alone the embeeded widows....!
-
Ian,
I am aware of the whole Tormach KISS principal, but how Tormach views the technical capabilities of their customer base is not the discussion I was looking for. Tormach has fans and foes and you are apparently the former, but debating Tormach policy is not the discussion I was looking for. I should never have mentioned Tormach, that much is clear.
My question was about the merits of using an embedded OS for CNC control. There have been quite a few reads of this thread and thus far no useful comments on the topic, so I will conclude that there are no members here familiar with Embedded OS. That is not a startling conclusion since I doubt anyone would voluntarily use an embedded OS for a general purpose CNC controller. I have been learning about embedded OS from some very savvy customers as well as doing some research on it.
While I can understand how its use would support a KISS policy, and the cost is less than half od a full OS, but at this point I can safely say that it is not the right choice, in my opinion.
-
LOL - Your reply takes the term high-handed almost to the level of an art form. If my reply here comes across in a similar vein - it's purely intentional.
Your first post specifically related to Tormach so it's a little intolerant to then criticize me for replying in that context. I'd written my reply before your second post narrowed the terms of reference and frankly I couldn't be bothered to re-write it.
It is my understanding that the Embedded OS is targeted at purpose build devices with a very limited scope. Examples might be a modem, a router, perhaps a kiosk in the mall, a variety of 'smart' products from thermostats to coffee makers, but certainly not a general purpose PC .
Then it would appear you have a confused understanding of the distinction between an "embedded system" and an "embedded operating system".
Whilst most of the examples you cite might or might not be implemented as "embedded systems" the only one that is likely to employ an "embedded operating system" is the "kiosk in the mall". The others are highly unlikely to employ any operating system at all - embedded or otherwise.
With regards to your ending statement "but certainly not a general purpose PC" I see no evidence of anyone suggesting you *would* do this so your statement seems somewhat redundant. Perhaps you have some confusion also regarding the distinction between a mobo and a PC or even perhaps what PC stands for.
I am aware of the whole Tormach KISS principal, but how Tormach views the technical capabilities of their customer base is not the discussion I was looking for. Tormach has fans and foes and you are apparently the former, but debating Tormach policy is not the discussion I was looking for.
If I have no idea how this response relates to anything I said. I'll just say that I have no experience of Tormach whatsoever. I've never used their products and doubt I ever will. I am neither a fan nor a foe - I know nothing about them.
My question was about the merits of using an embedded OS for CNC control.
You're on the Mach3 forum - I therefore assumed that you were not asking about "an embedded OS" but specifically "Embedded Windows". I believe I've already attempted an answer to this but in your eagerness to snipe you appear to have either missed it or ignored it.
There have been quite a few reads of this thread and thus far no useful comments on the topic, so I will conclude that there are no members here familiar with Embedded OS. That is not a startling conclusion since I doubt anyone would voluntarily use an embedded OS for a general purpose CNC controller.
Again you reveal your confusion not to mention your arrogance (oops - mentioned it). Of course no one would use an embedded OS for a "general purpose" system - but I'll say it again - it appears to be only you that thinks it's been stated somewhere that you might. "Special" and "General" are by definition complete opposites. A CNC system seems to me to be a reasonable candidate for the term "special purpose". After all - you don't generally surf the net, write letters, view movies, print out documents or listen to your favorite tunes on a CNC system whereas you might well do all of these on a "general purpose" or Personal Computer system.
I don't purport to be a guru - savvy - or anything else. Just a bloke with 30 years professional operating system and software engineering experience in both application and systems development - some of which was indeed on embedded systems. I have to confess though I've never used Windows Embedded so please feel free to sue me if anything I've said is incorrect. (or snipe back at me again - whichever lights your candle the brightest).
-
Ian,
Near the bottom of your elaborate and carefully crafted anti-snipe snipe, you state this:
" . . . I have to confess though I've never used Windows Embedded . . . . "
Therefor everything you said up to that point, or after that point, . . is irrelevant to the topic.
Regardless of your semantics arguments, the fact is that MACH3 is a windows program and runs on 'General Purpose' Windows PC.
Yet, you made the comment:
"Of course no one would use an embedded OS for a "general purpose" system - but I'll say it again - it appears to be only you that thinks it's been stated somewhere that you might."
So it would seem you have forgotten about your 'friend' Tormach, that uses an Embedded OS in their "CNC controller" which is a general purpose PC, like or not.
I don't know what it is about that word Tormach. You say it once and you can't escape it after that. :(
-
I don't think the Tormach PC was ever intended to be a general purpose PC. It's purpose is to be a machine control PC, and nothing else.
-
Simpson36
Given your general attitude I really don't have the will to try to get you to understand what I think is a very simple concept.
You're obviously immovable from your (mistaken) belief that ANY hardware base that runs ANY version of Windows constitutes a 'general purpose Personal Computer'. So I'll leave you to it.
As my dear old Granny used to say "You can't teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and annoys the pig".
-
I don't think the Tormach PC was ever intended to be a general purpose PC. It's purpose is to be a machine control PC, and nothing else.
The definition of 'general Purpose' seems to be a stumbling block. Lilkely if you ask 6 people you could get 6 answers.
So long as Tormach is still on the table, I can say for certain (because I have correspondence from Tormach management that says as much) that Tormach does not want their customers using anything non-Tormach and that they do not condone or support their users modifying the systems. In fact they go out of their way to prevent it. So for those users who are willing to be confined to that playpen, it may be accurate in a sense to refer to their 'CNC controller' as 'special purpose', but that would be because Tormach has made it so, not because the PC itself has that restriction. My opinion only, of course.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of MACH users run more programs on their CNC PC than bare bones MACH3. In my experience, MACH users have a multitude of add-in programs, plug-ins, estimators, calculators, editors, emulators (i.e.ost USB devices) . Further, while a user might not 'Surf the NET' using their 'CNC controller', there are a growing number of TCP interfaced products (smoothstepper, for example) that require the same network services as the browser.
The only reason (other than cost saving) to use an Embedded OS is to trim it down by leaving out modules and services that are not needed for a particular application. Building a special purpose OS is made simple by Microsoft by slicing up the Windows OS and putting in in an ala cart cafeteria line. You push your tray down the line taking the stuff you want, but only you know what's on the tray at the end. If someone comes along to use your OS and they need a peach cobbler routine but you only took the apple pie off the dessert shelf, then they are not going to be able to run on your system.
I have two 'CNC controllers'. One for my InTurn™ 4th axis and one for my ATC. Neither has a conventional OS, embedded or otherwise. You cannot run a windows program on either of them, for example. They have their own code and they carry out their own tasks, period. They are indeed 'special purpose', but nobody is going to want to run a speed and feed calculator on them, so the inability to run a windows program is moot.
On the other hand, Embedded Windows is going to lack something that the full OS has (otherwise, except for cost, there would be no reason to use it). The reason I think it is safe to say it is the wrong choice for a CNC PC for running MACH3 is that unless you have some documentation describing what has been left out, it is a crap shoot every time you want to add something to MACH or utilize an ancillary program that would be beneficial to run on the CNC host machine, even if it is only a driver for an ad-in PCI parallel port, which incidentally is an actual example of a program that will not run on the Embedded OS. The program is calling services that do not exist and if the programmer included a trap for that, the program would exit gracefully with an error message. But why would a programmer do that? It is as likely that the application (or driver) would crash the OS thru a deadly embrace, crash a running app (MACH3 for example) or simply destabilize the system. rams. With an Embedded OS, there would be no way for a user to diagnose this situation (that I know of). Again, just my opinion.
As I said earlier, at one time there seemed to be some valid reasons to create a PC with restrictions in order to remove some of the Windows 'background noise' that caused timing problems or other issue with MACH. As I learn more about this topic, I become more convinced that the published reasons (now 5 years old) for using an Embedded OS are no longer valid. Tormach is the example, only because they are the only major supplier that I know of that provided Embedded Windows (and a very old version at that) and also published their reasons for doing so.
The problem with using Tormach as a barometer is their all encompassing KISS principal. That might be the only driving force behind their continued use of Embedded Windows, so the fact that they still use Embedded Windows does not necessarily mean they have any technical basis or advantage for doing so. It could simply be their extreme aversion to change. That's why I was seeking other opinions and advice that might be more current and not be laced with any particular vendor's ulterior motive.
The above detail may clarify my position, or it may simply further agitate the locals, however, on reflection this forum was probably a bad choice on my part as a place to get such information. The mention of Tormach here, in almost any context, brings angry peasants bearing torches at the castle gate. Once that happens, there is no getting in or out until you give them the monster they seek.
-
Simpson36
Given your general attitude I really don't have the will to try to get you to understand what I think is a very simple concept.
You're obviously immovable from your (mistaken) belief that ANY hardware base that runs ANY version of Windows constitutes a 'general purpose Personal Computer'. So I'll leave you to it.
As my dear old Granny used to say "You can't teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and annoys the pig".
Ian,
I think you need to retake the course 'British debating style 101'.
You can skip the chapters on:
1) exaggeration in the extreme
2) not providing even the slightest bit of support for any of your contentions.
3) presenting your opinion as facts, then going on to using those synthesized facts as support for arguments.
4) reacting to disagreement on facts as if your opponent has insulted your sister.
The part you need a refresher on is what names to call your opponent when you have exhausted your creativity in implementing steps 1 thru 4 above.
5) when loosing a debate, calling your opponent a wanker.
You see, Ian, you called me a pig. This is incorrect. As you leave the arena in mock frustration, you are supposed to call me a Wanker
Nobody enjoys a good debate more than I, but if you aren't going to follow your own team rules, I'm afraid I won't be able to participate. ;)
-
If I was a commercial supplier of CNC machine tools which go into a workshop environment and are used every day to make stuff, so they have to be reliable and safe, I wouldn't want anyone fiddling with any part of the tool, including its control system. Not only will it make it more reliable it will save me support effort and warranty problems. If I have to use some third-party software that needs another third-party's OS to run, I'd like to lock down both of those so I know precisely what the controller software config is. This view is based on a career spent in the electronics industry associated with a number of complex software-controlled products and systems. Maybe these are the type of considerations that Tormach have in mind?
-
If I was a commercial supplier of CNC machine tools which go into a workshop environment and are used every day to make stuff, so they have to be reliable and safe, I wouldn't want anyone fiddling with any part of the tool, including its control system. Not only will it make it more reliable it will save me support effort and warranty problems. If I have to use some third-party software that needs another third-party's OS to run, I'd like to lock down both of those so I know precisely what the controller software config is. This view is based on a career spent in the electronics industry associated with a number of complex software-controlled products and systems. Maybe these are the type of considerations that Tormach have in mind?
I can't speak for Tormach except to parrot what they have published on their web site ('white papers' etc) and the actual correspondence that I have from them that is addressed to me and in response to my specific queries.
Tormach published that they have 'locked down' the version of MACH3 that they supply for the reasons you stated. This can be a long debate in itself, but whether or not anyone agrees with it, this is their stated policy and the reason for that policy, so it speaks to your question as to what they may have had in mind.
However, the reasons they give for using the embedded OS is so that the system timing will not be altered by unnecessary Windows services running in the background. I do not recall seeing any reference to keeping users fingers out of the cookie jar as a validation for using the embedded OS. They cited only technical reasons and then only in a somewhat narrow scope.
My only question (although it is getting harder and harder to drill down to it) is whether these technical reasons are still valid.
I remember paying some hundreds of dollars to have 32K of ram added (soldered to the MB) on my first computer; an Apple II. I can remember having two versions of Programs written in Basic. One with comments and one with all comments, blank lines and spaces removed. The purpose was to save precious ( and stupidly expensive by todays standards) memory and disc space. Years later, out of habit, some programmers were still spending time 'compacting' their code even though the compiler was already doing that for them. Some would say you can look at code and tell if it is from an old timer (like myself) or a younger programmer. The difference being the younger programmers 'grew up' with no such size restrictions . . plus they can all touch type . . . so the commenting is very verbose and clear, while that from the Jurassic period is brief almost to the point of being some kind of secret code that only the original programmer can fully understand.
After WWII there were Japanese soldiers who hid in the jungle for many years because they did not get the word that the war had ended. Obviously their behavior was based on outdated or missing information.
Given these real world (albeit extreme) examples, and the fact that Tormachs published information is 5 years old, and that 'computer years' are like 'dog year' only with a much higher ratio, I think it is reasonable to question whether there is still a valid reason to use a stripped down Embedded Windows XP as the Operating system for a piece of software that is specifically targeted at being a 'one-size-fits-all' generic CNC control. The intent here not to pick on Tormach, but to determine if their path is one to follow or one that is overgrown from lack of maintenance, interest, or simply frozen in time by their KISS principal. Tormach is going to do what they do. I do not have anything Tormach, but I have many customers who do, so I need to do my homework on this thing and come to some conclusions.
Mach is a Windows program (PP driver excepted). It is sort of like an aircraft carrier in that is does it job surrounded by an array of support ships. In the real world, it requires an array of drivers and in many (if not most by now) cases it used auxiliary hardware for additional ports or for motion control devices and other processes. To say that a single PC with an stripped down OS running plain vanilla MACH3 thru a single PP is typical (I think) is not accurate. While that pretty much describes a Tormach machine, if it were typical of most machines in the real world, I doubt there would be any need for this forum.
In any case, I am convinced at this point from information I was able to gather from other sources, that the justification for Embedded Windows as an OS has gone the way of terse program commenting and Patriots hiding in the jungle . . i.e. seemed like a good idea at the time, but not really needed any more.
-
You see, Ian, you called me a pig.
No I didn't you muppet. I wasn't calling you anything - It's a well known saying (google it).
If I'd used an alternative with much the same meaning "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" Would you then infer I was calling you a horse? ;D
LOL - What is wrong with you? (rhetorical - I'm done here).
-
No I didn't you muppet.
Too vague. This has no insult value ::)
Please be more specific. I don't think they have a horse muppet. Miss Piggy, perhaps?
You need to relax, Ian. Its not all about you.
-
You need to relax, Ian. Its not all about you.
Simpson reading your posts here and also on the cnczone, the consensus has you as the one that needs to relax. How do you go from being a rookie to an expert just because you feel your always correct?
Reminds me of the sociopathic personality; seem to know something about everything, blame others for their mistakes, never takes responsibilities and boast about oneself for others to admire. You make inappropriate comments to a moderator. Like you have more importance then anyone else. Your full of yourself and as observers, you just make us laugh at you. (Thanks for that)
You dont have to respond in kind when you feel slighted, insulted or disrespected. Most are here to share and learn. Chill out, don't be rude!
I refuse to deal with the perfidious & conceited.
It's nice to be retired.
-
Indian,
Well, there goes the neigborhood. I had a feeling this thread was going to go this way. I am flattered that you used your very first post on helping me to understand my psychological problems, but your post has nothing whatever to do with the topic.
Ian is one of the big dogs. Do you really think he needs your help to keep me in line? I only banter about with people on this forum who I feel, in my grand arrogance, are worth bantering with. I have not posted anything on CNC zone in ages, so whatever 'consensus' you have must be a historical one. Really, you give me too much credit. I have not claimed to be an expert and nobody is loosing any sleep over what I have to say.
Maybe you can find an old lady who needs help crossing the street and you can feel important doing that. Or post under your real screen name and contribute something useful to the topic.
Better yet would be for Ian or another moderator to delete this entire thread. It wasn't very useful to start with (my fault for using the 'T' word), but now it serves no purpose at all. :'(
-
So, this is one of those question's where no answer . . is the answer.
And then once said and so it was done! ;D
May the bird of paradise fly above ya all and drop the best of wishes.............
RICH
-
Hi Guys,
Whilst the information presented in this thread is not of practical use to me (at this moment in time) I have learned a lot from it which otherwise I would not have known so thank you.
Tweakie.
-
Hi, guys, I know the thread got a bit tangled, but for those who see the subject line might be interested in seeing this site: http://www.project1a.com/cnc.html
I have no affiliation with it, so I don't want to hear that it doesn't work or that it screwed up your system ;D
Hope that it helps-
Dave
-
Hi, guys, I know the thread got a bit tangled, but for those who see the subject line might be interested in seeing this site: http://www.project1a.com/cnc.html
Hope that it helps-
It does help to reinforce the notion that people use their 'CNC controller' to run more that just plain vanilla MACH3. The author of the linked article had success only to a point. He says:
"Specifically, I wanted to have Cambam installed because, even though I wouldn't do any major design work on this computer, it would sometimes be handy to be able to produce gcode for simple cases without moving to a different computer."
However, his progress is summed up thus:
"Unfortunately, my efforts at installing Cambam have been fruitless so far. I'll try again later. "
And so ends the article.
Surfing the web, watching YouTube or reading E-mail are arguably not realistic needs for a CNC computer, but Above is an example of a valid App to have available. Some others might be Feed Rate calculators, G-code viewers and/or editors, G-code generators and simple geometry editors *Vectrix CUT2D is one that I use, and I can go on and on.
The argument has been correctly made that these kind of satellite utilities CAN be run on a remote computer, however, I suspect that such arguments must come from people who are running a simple stepper setup with the PP have therefor no need for servo configuration and diagnostic software.
Systems that employ industrial drives have the need to run such software, usually on the CNC host machine. These capabilities are filtering down to hobby level stuff as well with at least one hobby level servo drive vendor that provides servo config software that requires .NET to be installed on the host machine in order for the config software to run.
So, can the .NET package be installed on a particular Embedded Windows XP hardware? It should be a simple question, but getting an answer seems all but impossible and is made more difficult by that vocal group of stepper users who insist it is not necessary, as if that is an answer.
In any case, the customer who I was doing this research for has now purchased a new PC with Windows 7 and the Tormach 'CNC controller' shall become a door stop. So far as I know this puts the score back to 100% as far as my Tormach users ditching the sertup as delivered, so I have no further interest in the topic and this will be my last post.
In parting, I do want to make one last quote from this thread:
. . . . please feel free to sue me if anything I've said is incorrect. (or snipe back at me again - whichever lights your candle the brightest).
Clearly, the banter in this thread was by invitation. I do enjoy sparring with a challenging opponent, be it physical or verbal. Yeah, I have some moves, but I take my lumps too and I don't whine about it. However, I do no beat up 12 year old students, and it is never, and I will repeat never, my intention to be mean spirited and make an intentional verbal degredation of anyone. If I am swapping insults with someone, be sure of two things, 1) it is all in fun and 2) I think the opponent is capable of kicking my A$$. Now surely that would be fun to watch. There are a number of well know rivalries here and on CNC zone that have nothing to do with me. I did not invent anything new. Some people watch a boxing match and then post that the winner is a mean person because he hit the other guy. Hello, its boxing. If you are afraid of getting bruised, don't get in the ring. If you can't stand the sight of blood, then don't watch.
Personally I love competition, but I despise bullfighting . . so I don't watch bullfighting. Its not complicated.
Have a nice day . . . .
-
A simple thank you, would have been fine...... ;D
-
Maybe this article/report only adds confusion to this discussion, but seemed appropriate.
http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/microsoft-pushes-windows-embedded-the-internet-of-things-235007
John Champlain
-
HIYA Steve IF you are asking if a dedicated stripped down embedded version of WIN would be better. Testing proved YES it created a more stable OS for Mach3 to run in. AND no it did not fix Mach3 s timing issues, that is a software problem.
You can get XP down to about 350 MB and W2K down to about 250MB. THe trick is to Research and test as to WHAT you can get rid of and still have Mach3 running correctly and that will depend of what you expect out of the PC and its uses.
Using it for JUST a controller there is a TON of stuff that Mach3 will never use but it still remains running in the background.
Most COmmercial Machines have there own OS and it is dedicated strictly to do business as a machine controller and nothing else. Many run more that 1or2 processors some up to 8 to take care of business.
Just a thought, (;-) TP
-
I have just bought an Atom based single board computer an a Windows 7 Embedded Standard (WE7S) license. Have yet to receive it so have yet to establish whether it is a good idea.
I would have preferred XP Embedded but the supplier told me that the Atom graphics unit was better under WE7S. XP Em. can be made shrunk down to a smaller footprint than WE7S, really tho storage is not much of an issue these days, I selected a 64G SSD and 4G DDR3 800Mhz, more than enuf for even a fullblown OS.
WE7S does have better configuration/authoring tools than XP and given I'm no geek that will be important. One issue that concerned me is that so many software components depend on yet other components some of which are mutually exclusive. One piece of the configuration suite (trial free 180 days) explicitly highlights those dependencies and resolves them prior to deployment. Another of the suite allows additional modules to be added/deleted/modified on the target machine. The distribution share supplied has both 32 and 64 bit options, I will concentrate on 32 bit.
As the previous responder has suggested it really comes down to what you can leave out and still have Mach3 run. If anyone has any suggestions I'm all ears. For instance .NET support
from level 2 to 3.5 (I think) is offered and can be included. As to whether Mach3 requires .NET support I have no idea. Certainly other useful programs do use it and I have yet to decide whether to try them. The question is what modules I can include without 'stealing' too many resources from Mach3.
Craig
-
Steve,
what research I have done that you can choose to include .NET functionality in an embedded OS. In the case of Windows 7 Embedded Standard you can choose the level of .NET support from level 2 thru level 3.5
Exactly what is included in each level is available from Microsoft but much of it is foreign to me.
The bigger question is what functionality is required by any particular app. It would appear there is no definitive list of what is required by Mach3. This is a shame, I would certainly like such a list. In fact I don't recall seeing any app which specifically listed its OS requirements, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.
One idea suggests that including all functionality available in the distribution share available with your version OS. It may happen tho that some inclusions represent a processing load that could lead to Mach3 failure. The other alternative is exclude all functionality not required for Mach3. It would limit what other app's you could run but at least the choice is yours.
My previous posts both in this thread and others indicate that I mean to find out, either by asking others who might know or failing that by experiment.
I will post anything that I find that may be of use.
-
I think you will run into .net requirements depending on what motion controller you're using. My UC-100 and 300 need .net 2.
Derek
-
Steve,
what research I have done that you can choose to include .NET functionality in an embedded OS. .
I will post anything that I find that may be of use.
Just to clarify, nothing will be of use to myself as my conclusion was and is that there is no practical reason to use an embedded OS with MACH. Others may reach a different conclusion and your research may benefit them, but I have no interest in and see no reason for anyone to voluntarily use an embedded OS in their own fully equipped PC.
I did not research .NET compatibility. It was merely an example of a required extension ( and a huge one at that) but the point is moot to me as I would not use an embedded OS unless I was designing a Kiosk for the mall, a hand held instrument of some kind, a 'smart' security system, or trying to run a general purpose windowed environment on an AtMel or PIC development board.
This topic is driven primarily by misconceptions, in my view. The primary one being that the long list of windows services are 'running' in the background. They are not 'running', they are 'loaded'. The vast majority just take up space until they are called. Non essential services can be disabled. Explorer is now used for file management, but you have control over which 'enhancers' (i.e. cycle gobblers or interrupt hogs) are active, so just disable them. You can set priority and affinity and so on and so on.
PC memory is so cheap now, that unless your time has practically no value at all, it makes no sense to spend it trying to 'strip down' an OS to make it fit in some tiny space when a few bucks gets you enough space to store the full OS many times over. I see a lot of advice to use a Jurassic PC as if that is actually a solution, when in my view it is the opposite. Modern multi processor systems also have modern support chips (North Bridge South Bridge, etc) that do most of the system processing that used to involve (and interrupt) the processor. Some of these chips even include dedicated graphics processors now.
An interesting thing about advice is that it tends to take on a life of its own and once rooted and fed, it thrives on its own far past it's useful life.
ex:
Instead of using a modern computer with a string of processors just waiting around to do high order math or predict branching while dedicated chips run the machinery in the basement, lets rewind back to a PC where the processor spent half of its time providing DMA services for the hard disk drive and trying to make pretty graphics on the screen. Then jump thru innumerable hoops getting the OS a tiny as possible in the (mistaken) hope that it will be easier for what's left of the processor's power to run 'reliably'.
Oh Yeah, that's a good plan. ::)
I did discover two practical reasons that a vendor might use an embedded OS in a PC (as opposed to a device for which embedded OS is intended according to MS) that they SELL to the General Public. . Those are A) cost savings (embedded OS is cheaper) and B) to intentionally restrict what their customers can do with the PC with the intent of reducing and/or 'dumbing down' their support requirement. Supporting a product is a lot easier if you don't let people use it. Not a complicated formula.
If one of those two objectives is the primary driver of the choice od OS, then an Embedded OS makes sense, otherwise, it is just the Emperor's new clothes. That is the conclusion reached by my research into this topic. Your mileage may vary.
-
Steve,
I think your points are well made. Storage is that cheap that cutting away code for size sakes makes no sense at least in the hobby environment.
My inclination in this project/undertaking is to take advantage of the current offerings of industrial computing solutions available. The systems I have reviewed and am interested in are rugged and reliable. Additionally the manufacturers claim that support for these devices will be available for years to come, appropriate to industrial/commercial life cycles. These systems may be cheaper for vendors whom produce thousands of these things but are not in fact cheap to a low volume user like me. The laptop I just bought for general use (i7 core, 1TB, 16G..... etc) cost less than the industrial board I have bought for my controller.
My choice may seem weird to many but it reflects my own inclination to 'buy the best I can afford'. As an example I some months ago bought a commercial washing machine for home, the kind you would see in a Laundromat. I paid $500 for it, second hand. A new domestic machine sells in New Zealand for around $750, I certainly didn't save much money but hope it will outlast the domestic machine life cycle of 5 years or so. Parts supply for my commercial machine, an established design and longstanding manufacturer, is superb. Call we weird and I will take that on the chin!
Most functional components in Windows are only running when called as you point out however some of the underpinning code does run constantly. What the components are and if they are required for MY installation is the subject of research.
-
Have taken delivery of my single board computer and installed 32bit Windows Embedded Standard 7 (WES7) and Mach3. Its running well. better than my old XP
machine anyway.
Whether it was worth the extra money and time, well probably not. I have learnt a lot on the way which I regard as worthwhile.
I believe I have ended up with a more stable platform to run Mach3 from software and crispy new hardware point of view.
Craig