[307startup]

Is it possible to run MACH 3 on an embedded PC using Windows XP embedded? Has anyone done this? I really don't want to be a guinea pig, but I think this could be a usable situation for a ready-made controller, ie: offering a plug-in & go PC for those who would want it.

[jflanigan]

In general, application software must be compiled for the target operating system. From the software developers point of view, there are simularities between Windows and Windows CE. Still, they are very different platforms. The software developer must intend that the product will work on Win CE.

So the answer is "No." The Windows version of Mach3 will not work in an embedded environment.

[jrslick22]

Yes i have works great

[PurpleOfPants]

Can't think of any reason why PC104 shouldn't work - the whole idea of it is to be PC compatible in a small form factor, after all. However, I personally wouldn't do it (and haven't) due mainly to the cost. Instead, look at mini-itx (17cm x 17cm) or even nano- and pico-itx. The advantages of these are that they're made by mainstream motherboard vendors so have a reasonable cost and use standard fittings. As far as I'm aware, for instance, there is no standard for what ports are presented on which side for PC104, but even nano-itx has everything where a normal PC does.

As an example, try: http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=11045

[vcooney]

So what do you do...plug your driver cards in a pc and use the pc as the controler box?

Vince

[jrslick22]

Take one thin client running XPE (higher spec the better), load Mach3 on it via internet or flash drive, reboot and configure

[idgara]

Why bother?

[jrslick22]

very small, mines bolted to the back of a 19" flat screen, very fast to load about 30s, not harmed by switching off without shutting down, no viruses, no moving parts, cheep i payed about $80usd for mine.

[alufly]

Hi this sounds very interesting any pictures???? what machine are you running with it.



Keith.

[idgara]

I've got a P III running my router, it cost me nothing.
If/when it dies, I'll get another one for nothing (or maybe a sign job)

[MicroMill]

Wow, these answers are all over the place! From confusion over Windows CE when you asked about XP, to what ports to use. Save yourself a lot of grief and snag a used 1 GHZ processor machine. I have a laptop that is easy to get out of the way, and you have your screen right with you when you want to play. But to answer your question. When you say "imbedded", is there a timing concern that might interfere with Mach3 and vice-versa? Are you able to run other "apps" like Xcel, Word, Outlook, etc. while using that XP based machine as your CNC controller? :rainfro:

[talal]

i can read englishe but icant raight english and i have to many equstion abut cnc plese help me

[talal]

i need cnc planes

[joymanchen]

Yes,I have installed MACH3 in my computer working on Windows XP.
It's great ! Don't hesitate !

[307startup]

MicroMill...

I don't want to use a laptop for several reasons, the most important to me being the laptops innate ability to go into a coma in the middle of a program. Not something I really like having happen when a $300 piece of aluminum is on my table and I have to pray that it's not trashed. Art Fenerty & Tormach also do not recommend laptops for use with Mach 3, not because they aren't capable of running the program, but because of several inconsistencies they have discovered that affects the end result compared to a non-portable PC.
As to a PC104 or Pico-ITX type computer, they are tiny. They still have some blistering fast processors, use hardly any power and are capable of running all your software. This computer is strictly to run my machine...no other functions. No Excel, Word, internet, etc. It will run pared-down to the essentials XP & Mach 3. Nothing else. I have a normal computer for all the other crap. That is why I started this thread. Because PC104's can run normal XP, but they can also run Microsoft's embedded XP platform as well. I was concerned about compatibility with Mach 3. An embedded platform is one that is built into the machine. Perfect for a CNC controller. I can have a flatscreen monitor and an embedded computer in an enclosure barely bigger than the monitor. No ridiculously large PC case, and cords strung to hell and back. Everything would be hung like a normal monitor with all cords run through conduit. A stationary computer is the ideal for myself with my CNC.
Thank You

[alufly]

This sounds like the way to go any ideas where one could get PC104 and what would be the best model to use.

thanks

Keith

[turmite]

WYLD since you are the one who started this, and the one who seems to know something about it, would you be so kind as to share that knowledge a little more. I did a search for the pc104 and found lots of info but most of it was not something really understood.

Is the 104 a single board system or do you have to have multiples to make a system work? I saw one place that showed stacked 104 to make a bundle.
What is a bundle? Will this system have a true parallel port, and if so, do you have to add another 104 board to obtain the port?

Sorry about all the questions, but you have got my interest for two reasons. One it seems these things are fanless (less dust problems) and second they seem to be inexpensive.

Mike

[307startup]

Turmite

From what I understand (I'm not computer-illiterate, just more mechanically inclined - my sister is the computer jockey and she explained a lot of stuff for me) is that bundling allows for more input/output options as you are limited to the number of input/output "sockets" per board.

I have seen something similar using the Nano/Pico ITX boards...basically you can create a very small supercomputer that doesn't require massive amounts of power or cooling of the towers. Depending on how you set up your board(s) you can shuffle specific calculations between your layers and use another board(s) to integrate these calculations.

Basically for a small home-built CNC machine, one board would be more than adequate if you interface it with a Parallel port card or multiple parallel port cards (splitting your input/output between a dual PP set up allows you to run a higher bus speed while having more pin-outs...perfect for Mach 3 where you are limited to 45mHz (or is it kHz?)) and are running through a GREX which would then accept your various input/output schedules, ie; stepper/servo drivers, encoder interface, e-stop, spindle motor, etc,etc.

These boards can be embedded...just like a commercial CNC, but without the specific function boards which can be very expensive to replace. Since the architecture is very similar/based-off PC design, most of the software and hardware is the same, only built for limited/specific application use.

Windows XP or CE is an example...same engine, different levels of software trim, and again, there is a slimming down effect in the software code between PC and embedded version. Making it more of a single purpose computer.

From all the information I have available, it would be very possible to create a CNC comp in the same enclosure as your drives, power supplies without the needed for excessive cooling.

Since this would be for a CNC only purpose, you wouldn't need a screaming fast processor (I have seen PC-104+ boards with 2.4gHz processors...ungodly fast when you are running single programs at a time...so fast your output couldn't possibly keep up when you are limited to your PP speed).

Not knowing your specific application, I can't say where your needs/desires vs. available boards & software would intersect.

Another affordable version of this would be to use the Nano-ITX/Pico-ITX boards, as these aren't industry standardized like the PC-104/PC-104+ platform, but rather built by the same motherboard manufacturers as the commercially availble PC mb's.

I hope this helps.

My questions was geared more from the software side, as Mach 3 specifies a "slimmed down" version of XP to run as smoothly as possible, and I don't know if the embedded version of XP is missing critical components or if it's as modifiable as PC XP without being a programmer or using unwieldy software languages like C++ or higher, which can often times make the "fix" several thousand lines of code longer than the original program.

Since I'm not capable enough of modifying code at the root level, and I'm not sure commercially available Windows software is even capable of being modified at this level, I was trying to ensure that I wouldn't be out the investment in the board & software plus time trying to integrate everything.

[daedalus]

I work with PC104 quite regularly in my day job, so maybe i can clear a few things up. Firstly your pc has a motherboard in it which is designed to a specific form factor, which determines the size of the pcb and locations for sockets, etc. PC104 is just another form factor, which is designed for putting computers into space and weight limited environments.

Whilst in a normal PC you have a big motherboard, and several daughter boards (pci / pci express/agp cards), in pc104 you have a small motherboard, with a series of ISA or PCI daughter boards stacked vertically above it. Any daughter boards, such as graphics cards and motion control cards need to be pc104 as well, so you cant just reuse parts from old PCs. There is only ever one motherboard, and the other boards in the stack are things such as graphics cards, motion controllers, etc. This is exactly the same as a pc, just a more compact layout. You can just use a single motherboard without any addons, but most dont come with printer ports, so you are likely to have to add those through a daughter board.

A lot of pc104 machines are usually very low spec, and are designed for embedded applications, but they are essentially exactly the same from a software standpoint as the PC on your desk, you can run any version of windows, and any software you get on your PC.

The downsides are that you pay a high premium for pc104, as its a much smaller market then mini-atx. Also you have to pay a premium for daughter boards, and you have much less choice.

Mini-ITX is a good compromise if you dont mind it being a little larger, as you can plug in pci cards just like any pc, and they are pretty cheap (check 2nd hand on ebay). Nano only support the compact-pci laptop format, and pico have no daughter board support. You really pay over the top for pico, so theres little point unless you need this thing to fit a small space.

XP embedded can do pretty much everything you can do with XP, its just targeted at a different market, and includes none of the usual junk bundled with XP. It is the same kernel, so software written for XP will run on XPe for the most part without any changes.

My personal view would be, unless space is an issue go for mini-itx, and unless you really want to run XPe, stick with XP. The time it takes to strip down the xp install as mach likes isnt much, and you get no benefit from XPe, as your not developing a product out of this. XPe is really neat if you need to set up 200 machines with stripped down embedded controllers, but for one its not really worth the hassle.

PS: the stack of mini-itx boards you mentioned is very different, that is a small beowolf cluster, basically 10 or so PCs which are connected to a network, and run software which is specifically designed/written to operate on all of them in parallel. This is useful for some numerical problems, but isnt general purpose by any means, so unless your a computer scientist it probably isnt of much use.

[307startup]

Thank you daedalus! I really appreciate the input on here, and when someone can clear up any mistakes I may have made in regards to a response, I am more than grateful, as it not only helps me, but whoever was asking for a response. As I said before, I am by no means an expert in this area, and was simply looking for a product that would require little modification or re-engineering to apply to my problem. Since I am not a developer, anything that allows me to invest more time in the main area of my project rather than endless side projects allows me more time to debug and improve my project. Thanks again!