That gives me plenty to pursue.
Thanks for all of the input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

   This is challenging to say the least. Apparently more than 1 of us do agree they have experienced different results on similar computers.
In my case I have proof of my machine running 330ipm in all 3 axis during a warm up routine. Yet now, on a different computer(s) fresh installs of everything. No chance I could get close. Maybe somewhere around 180ipm at the max and of course divide ipm by 3 for the actual single axis speed.
   What is more interesting is trying to find the information on what is responsible for the difference. Nobody seems to have any idea other than to get another computer, that might or might not have the same issue.
   Not being very computer knowledgeable but just dumb enough to try anything at this point, registry edits, BIOS setting changes, Reinstalling XP in every way you can, while holding F7 attempting to disable the APIC (not ACPI and there is a difference) or whatever. My theory is if it is  broken, how much more broken are you going to make it? None, its broken.
   Then you read, disable this in BIOS etc. only to find your mobo doesnt have a APIC disable for example. Hackers and overclockers tell you how to use modbin6.exe to do some form of editing, hallelujah there wasnt an instructional on that. Or I would probably be complaining about a BSOD on another forum I had to become a member of ;-)
   I soon start calling anybody and everybody I know who might know how to solve or investigate this issue. At one point I am speaking to a computer tech from a repair center whose father runs Mach 3 (total coincidence). He almost takes it as a personal challenge. After he explains more concepts than I can comprehend he keeps referring to it being a software problem, not hardware. Specifically an update on the Windows system. This update creates some form of polling that causes the interrupts. He apparently finds articles referring to it (not a Mach specific problem). He says the issue was most likely caused by a wdsclient.dll and refers to  a number 935772. Again both over my head. He claims the problem was caused by this specific update. Just as you think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, he says "the problem will be finding the correct .dll that did work". As maybe there is no library of options?
   Being hesitant about throwing money at a problem, you seem to read a lot about how modern or small computers might not work. Then people here have good experiences with a pico or mini itx too.
   I had thought the APIC had some bearing on the PP output and its noise. Then I see a driver test of a modern mini board and it almost looks flat. The green APIC LED is lit? How can this be? So of course now just more confusion. With a flat line or seemingly no or very few interrupts, would this allow me to experience the speeds and performance I once had? The saga continues.

Why not just spend $100 on a UC100 and abandon the parallel port?

 Stubborn?

 In reality I have had great experiences in the functionality of Mach from the beginning. Not saying I havent had problems but they were usually my faults as I was GREEN. I have gained a bit of knowledge and experience along the way (and you have contributed to it Gerry). For my needs and intelligence level the PP was exceptional when the PC was working correctly, right M3 version etc.

 I have tried both USB and ESS versions of the SS over the years only to find a limitation or 2 that I cant seem to work around. Or dont like. Whether it be lack of BC or threading or the constant faulting out. (Maybe the UC would be the same?) Really just another level of learning, another item to make it more complicated. I was trying the KISS principle. The latest is the homing issue in Turn that inspired this rant. Whether it is an ESS or Mach issue. It doesnt happen for me like than in Mill on a LPT. I dont think my need was ever for more pulses. Maybe on the Dyna's at 101000 steps per unit. Now I am in the 8000 steps per unit so quantity doesnt seem needed.

  I guess I really want to use a late model mini with an LPT if it will work. If these problems are in the computer are they just limited to the PP? Or do these glitches and interrupts also effect the performance via a different motion controller only at a higher speed?

For all practical purposes, the parallel port is the computer, especially if it's a built in port.

I dont think my need was ever for more pulses.

It's not about more pulses. Just better pulses.
The problem is that the PC, for whatever reason, can't generate smooth pulses.
So eliminate the problem, and get a device that's specifically designed to generate smooth pulses. A motion controller. The PC should have nothing to do with the pulses generated by the motion controller.

  That is what I did with the ESS. It got me to this point because after all of the configuration. Satisfying performance and all. I cant get the machine to home correctly. No matter what I do to rectify it. It doesnt fix it. Though I have and can run machines without limits or home switches. I dont want to. Once you have experienced machines with repeatable homing, you dont want to go back.

  Nobody on the SS forum or the Mach forum knows why or which piece is dominant for the dialog box reverting after hitting the reset buttons for example. Not including why the homing offset value in the homing/limits page doesnt work. Maybe it is Turn? But it doesnt work like this on a PP with Mill. If I could get around the 1 homing issue I would move on. Without it, its a deal killer.

  Regarding the interrupts and whether they transfer thru the motion controller was just a thought, not based on anything but suspicion. Just seems like the same stutter would still be there. Plenty to be wrong about.

Hmm..........
What you need is my lathe screen set. I don't use switches and frankly don't see any need for them on my lathe.
I use a quick change for the all the tools ( maybe I'll have a turret some day, good grief another project ) and use probing to find the lathe X & Z zero, manually set a home position to where it is usable for the current job, and probe to set the G54 offset in Z. I can probably do that as fast as having switches to set up a job!

Guess it just a matter of how one works.

One of these days the screen manual will be done and then I'll post it, but, until I take time away from some other interests the screen set will just need to remain in the background.  

                    Toot Toot, Bang Bang, Chop Chop, etc,
which means: Music      , Guns       , Knife Making, ( and other stuff which can't be said) 

Got to go and prepare for Santa's arrival as the bigger chimney is not finished, 
RICH

My lathe has turret.

 If you had home switches you would like them. I have done both ways. I like soft limits too. Especially when they are based off of a homing switch instead of a random point.

Rich that is not a screen it is a NOVEL  

You do not need switches with steppers as you can simply bump them up against a hardstop then set home. Now don't try that with servos (;-)

(;-) TP

Now don't try that with servos (;-)

(;-) TP

That is the way I home my turret and it has a servo


Hood