Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> "Les Mots" (Jean-Paul Sartre). Did anybody ever measure
>> the non-stability of this delay?
>> How about to connect RTS(output) to CTS(input) and then
>> toggling "on" RTS, and on receiving CTS change toggle "off"
>> RTS, then again on receiving CTS change toggle RTS "on"
>> and so on.
>> How should it look like on a scope?
>> What would show programmatically counting delay between
>> RTS togglings?
>
> I don't know, but you could certainly try it yourself if you really
> wanted the answer.  I have personally observed Windows 2000 going out
> to lunch for 100 - 200mS at a time for no apparent reason.  One of my
> customers was (despite my advice) trying to use Windows 2000 to
> control some industrial equipment with a loop time of 30mS.  It
> worked fine most of the time, and the CPU useage was only a few
> percent, but there was a hiccup every once in a while.  Despite
> shutting down all other processes we knew about, making sure there
> was plenty of real memory, etc, it would still happen every few
> minutes to every few seconds.  The probability of occurrence could be
> greatly increased by just dragging the mouse around without hitting
> any buttons, even over the desktop.


That's the thing.

If I had enough money, I would sue Microsoft for stealing processor cycles
from my machine.
But then, If I had enough money, I would be running a nice Sun machine, and
not even remembering that Microsoft exist.

Microsoft is failing in a tremendous way regarding industrial application.
There is not a simple way to dedicate all the processor power to one
application, you will have always the Microsoft lack of knowledge of real
multi-task operation at your ankles.  If there is just one application
running, why in the heck the processor needs to keep being interrupted?  to
check if there is another application trying to launch? and what about it I
want to lock just one application? simply can't.

It is messing up with several, thousands, millions of worldwide
applications that depend on specific timed pulses on ports (most LPT
ports).  It is ridiculous to force customers to keep running old versions
of Windows or even DOS platform.  In some way, Microsoft is putting our of
business several old partners, people who developed applications under
windows, and now it simply doesn't work under the new versions.

I think Microsoft is spitting over their own food plate.  By dedicating all
the attention to office and corporative solutions, Microsoft is just
pushing away the only thing that can ruin then in a long shot; industrial.

Industrial application is about reading input and controlling output ports.
If Microsoft could allow us to lock easily a single application, it would
expand any Windows platform (mostly the newly that would still generating
megadollars to the already filthy rich bill's bank account) to the
industrial area, that is not small.  Lets remember that "industrial" can
means "home-small-industrial" also.

The only explanation I see, is that even Bill doesn't trust Windows
platform for industrial application. When you crash your Word you just
blame Bill and restart. If Kodak crashes the sensitive chemical film
temperature application, it can means many thousands of dollars lost, and
bill will not want to be sued hundreds of times a day...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics