One of our program is a DOSX program.

We make real time with it on pure Dos: drives a cnc machine tool.

It works fine, and i think nothing is faster than DOSX associated with DM C++.

but i have some worries for the future:

1- will we be able to run in pure DOS mode in the future ? (i think Win
2000 and Win Me as well don't support pure
dos mode),

2- PC's hardware are less and less PC Compatible.. as hardware is more and more virtualized,

3- for network, scanner and web cam, we have to restart windows, witch is pretty long..

We are studying different solution for the future.

One is to put more hardware in the machine (buffer) and port our program
on Windows.

The question is:

What is the maximum response time of windows on hardware request ?

There is already some real time program on windows:

software audio and image decompression, web cam, CD-R engraving, etc...

I would like to have some general informations about those kind of software, do i have to make a device driver, is there someting special to know, advices, etc..

Thanks very much

Roland

Why not just stick with vanilla DOS? If it solves the problem, there's no need to upgrade. After all, for running a machine tool, what does Windows 2000 offer?

If the future is a concern, buy a few backup computers that will run DOS, and save copies of your DOS disks in a safe place.

 -Walter

well, we will sell 20 of our micro machine tools on 2001 and 50 on 2002, each
one
networked with one or two pc's..

regards

rolland

Walter a écrit :

> Why not just stick with vanilla DOS? If it solves the problem, there's no need to upgrade. After all, for running a machine tool, what does Windows 2000 offer?
>
> If the future is a concern, buy a few backup computers that will run DOS, and save copies of your DOS disks in a safe place.
>
>  -Walter

There will always be PC-104 and it will always run DOS.  PC-104 is an ISA bus PC architecture having a different mechanical form factor which is tailored for embedded applications.  PC-104+ is the PCI version of same.  Both should be around a good long time.  Check into it.

http://www.pc104.org/

Mark


On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:37:02 +0200, NancyEtRoland <nancyetroland@free.fr> wrote:
> well, we will sell 20 of our micro machine tools on 2001 and 50 on 2002, each
> one
> networked with one or two pc's..
> 
> regards
> 
> rolland
> 
> Walter a écrit :
> 
> > Why not just stick with vanilla DOS? If it solves the problem, there's no need to upgrade. After all, for running a machine tool, what does Windows 2000 offer?
> >
> > If the future is a concern, buy a few backup computers that will run DOS, and save copies of your DOS disks in a safe place.
> >
> >  -Walter
> 

Cool!
I didn't know they were that serious about it!

Jan



Mark Evans wrote:

> There will always be PC-104 and it will always run DOS.  PC-104 is an ISA bus PC architecture having a different mechanical form factor which is tailored for embedded applications.  PC-104+ is
> the PCI version of same.  Both should be around a good long time.  Check into it.
>
> http://www.pc104.org/
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:37:02 +0200, NancyEtRoland <nancyetroland@free.fr> wrote:
> > well, we will sell 20 of our micro machine tools on 2001 and 50 on 2002, each
> > one
> > networked with one or two pc's..
> >
> > regards
> >
> > rolland
> >
> > Walter a écrit :
> >
> > > Why not just stick with vanilla DOS? If it solves the problem, there's no need to upgrade. After all, for running a machine tool, what does Windows 2000 offer?
> > >
> > > If the future is a concern, buy a few backup computers that will run DOS, and save copies of your DOS disks in a safe place.
> > >
> > >  -Walter
> >

Yeah, they are sweet.  However I consider DOS ugly, something that should have died a long time ago, especially for embedded apps.

My hope is that Real-Time Linux will get to a point of stability such that it displaces all the old DOS stuff in the embedded world.  RT Linux will run on PC-104 too.  You have to realize that PC-
104 is the same PC as sits on your desk except for the mechanical aspects.

For those interested in a Windows-compliant embedded tool check out Real Time Target (RTT) out of Germany which is a Win API emulation for real-time targets.  You end up writing code that pretty much reads, walks, and quacks like Windows or DOS code, but which actually runs on a real-time kernel.  It will even call DLLs.

Still it's great that Digital Mars supports 16-bit code and the DOS extended stuff.  Very few compilers still do.

Mark


On Thu, 24 May 2001 12:26:22 -0400, Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote:
> Cool!
> I didn't know they were that serious about it!
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Evans wrote:
> 
> > There will always be PC-104 and it will always run DOS.  PC-104 is an ISA bus PC architecture having a different mechanical form factor which is tailored for embedded applications.  PC-
104+ is
> > the PCI version of same.  Both should be around a good long time.  Check into it.
> >
> > http://www.pc104.org/
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:37:02 +0200, NancyEtRoland <nancyetroland@free.fr> wrote:
> > > well, we will sell 20 of our micro machine tools on 2001 and 50 on 2002, each
> > > one
> > > networked with one or two pc's..
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > rolland
> > >
> > > Walter a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Why not just stick with vanilla DOS? If it solves the problem, there's no need to upgrade. After all, for running a machine tool, what does Windows 2000 offer?
> > > >
> > > > If the future is a concern, buy a few backup computers that will run DOS, and save copies of your DOS disks in a safe place.
> > > >
> > > >  -Walter
> > >
> 

Mark Evans wrote:

> My hope is that Real-Time Linux will get to a point of stability such that it displaces all the old DOS stuff in the embedded world.  RT Linux will run on PC-104 too.  You have to realize that PC-
> 104 is the same PC as sits on your desk except for the mechanical aspects.

Ever tried FreeBSD?
http://www.freebsd.org/

I am personally not too crazy about Linux out of security perspective. Too much hacking, too little structure if you ask me...

Jan

Mark Evans wrote:

> Yeah, they are sweet.  However I consider DOS ugly, something that should have died a long time ago, especially for embedded apps.

Well, used DOS (and SCO Unix) for quite some time before Windows (NT 3.5) came along that was acceptably stable...
I think Windows is ugly too, but that is just me I guess. The original ideas behind NT were great, but I am not too sure how many of these ideas are still part of 2000. Just downloaded SP2
yesterday... 104 Mb...

Jan

Thanks

well some years ago we used industrial pc board.

the problem is
1- only the board is the price of a complete pc,
2- pc-104 is ISA isn't it ?

now we put the complete pc inside an industrial box

regard

Mark Evans a écrit :

> There will always be PC-104 and it will always run DOS.  PC-104 is an ISA bus PC architecture having a different mechanical form factor which is tailored for embedded applications.  PC-104+ is
> the PCI version of same.  Both should be around a good long time.  Check into it.
>
> http://www.pc104.org/
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:37:02 +0200, NancyEtRoland <nancyetroland@free.fr> wrote:
> > well, we will sell 20 of our micro machine tools on 2001 and 50 on 2002, each
> > one
> > networked with one or two pc's..
> >
> > regards
> >
> > rolland
> >
> > Walter a écrit :
> >
> > > Why not just stick with vanilla DOS? If it solves the problem, there's no need to upgrade. After all, for running a machine tool, what does Windows 2000 offer?
> > >
> > > If the future is a concern, buy a few backup computers that will run DOS, and save copies of your DOS disks in a safe place.
> > >
> > >  -Walter
> >

NancyEtRoland a écrit :

> 2- pc-104 is ISA isn't it ?

i should read your messages more carefully ..

Thanks again

>
>
> Mark Evans a écrit :
>
> > There will always be PC-104 and it will always run DOS.  PC-104 is an ISA bus PC architecture having a different mechanical form factor which is tailored for embedded applications.  PC-104+ is
> > the PCI version of same.  Both should be around a good long time.  Check into it.
> >
> > http://www.pc104.org/
> >
> > Mark
> >