Hello Guest it is March 29, 2024, 08:13:25 AM

Author Topic: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?  (Read 30733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,369 1,369
    • View Profile
Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« 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the thinking behind using Embedded Windows XP on their computers, but the information used to justify the move is far outdated and no longer valid relative to computer timing and interrupt issues.

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,369 1,369
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2014, 11:33:21 AM »
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.



« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 11:38:39 AM by simpson36 »

Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2014, 01:02:39 PM »
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
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2014, 01:10:11 PM »
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....!

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,369 1,369
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2014, 06:03:44 AM »
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.



Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2014, 08:46:35 AM »
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).
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 09:20:49 AM by stirling »

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,369 1,369
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2014, 01:19:15 PM »
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.   :(

Offline ger21

*
  • *
  •  6,295 6,295
    • View Profile
    • The CNC Woodworker
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2014, 05:36:09 PM »
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.
Gerry

2010 Screenset
http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html

JointCAM Dovetail and Box Joint software
http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html

Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2014, 05:09:07 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".

Offline simpson36

*
  •  1,369 1,369
    • View Profile
Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2014, 05:10:42 AM »
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.