Hello Guest it is November 16, 2019, 05:11:38 PM

Author Topic: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?  (Read 26444 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,374 1,374
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2014, 05:24:34 AM »
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.   ;)
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2014, 05:40:07 AM »
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?

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,374 1,374
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2014, 06:38:41 AM »
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. 

Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2014, 06:55:16 AM »
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).

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,374 1,374
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2014, 08:30:59 AM »
Quote
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.




 





Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2014, 12:26:17 PM »
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.

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,374 1,374
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2014, 03:14:00 PM »
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.  :'(

Offline RICH

*
  • *
  •  7,371 7,371
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2014, 03:54:55 PM »
Quote
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


« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 03:57:23 PM by RICH »

Offline Tweakie.CNC

*
  • *
  •  8,000 8,000
  • Super Kitty
    • View Profile
    • Tweakie.CNC
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2014, 08:51:14 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 11:18:05 AM by Tweakie.CNC »
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.  Winston Churchill.

Offline budman68

*
  • *
  •  2,360 2,360
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2014, 10:21:39 AM »
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because I'm a Global Moderator, don't assume that I know anything !

Dave->    ;)