|
True multitasking for DOS |
|
||||
| . |
|
||||
| Herkunft
inventor |
|
||||
|
Up to 63 terminals via serial RS232 (or modem) cabling. Cheap and reliable. |
.
|
| . | DR-Multiuser
DOS is a trademark of Novell corporation which bought the Digital Research
company, the inventor of CP/M and DR-DOS
CP/M and DR-DOS are trademarks of Caldera corporation (see at bottom of this page) |
|||
| Intelligent
Micro Software Ltd. |
look for the
REAL/32 WIN Server on the IMS LTD homepage
|
|||
| related
links |
|
| explanations |
|
| Wir verwenden DR-Multiuser DOS bzw. REAL/32 in den PC - Anwendungen. Im ATLAN Computer läuft degegen ATLAN 4th, ein PROM-fähiges Betriebssystem speziell für Steuerungsanwendungen, wo es auf direkte Verbindung zur Anlage ankommt. | We are using DR-Multiuser DOS and REAL/32 respectively for our PC programs. As opposed to the ATLAN computer, where ATLAN 4th is running, a PROMable real time executive OS especially suited for applications with direct interface to the plant. | |||||||
|
|
|
MULTITASKING
explanations Erläuterungen |
| Natürlich
ist auch Windows NT ein echtes Multitasking - Betriebssystem, und OS/2
ist es schon lange. Und Linux ist dazu noch ein Multi-User Betriebssystem.
Das Anforderungsprofil in der Automatisierungstechnik ist aber überhaupt nicht mit den typischen Büro - Anwendungen vergleichbar. why not windows |
Windows NT is of course a true multitasking
OS and OS/2 is it since several years. And Linux and all the other Unix
- derivatives are multiuser OS in addition.
But the profile of requirements in industrial control applications is totally different from the typical office applications. When looking for Windows or similar GUI overhead, the user wants several programs run not only concurrently, but also chained together with data exchange via OLE and DDE. So it does not help very much when the OS stops one outrunning application program - the chain is broken and the total system will crash. The problem with GUI operatng system is wasting resources. The efficiency, the ratio between useful work and pretty overhead is terribly bad. And as experience tells, the errors are spread over all the program code, the more code, the more chances of errors. It is tempting to have "standard" programs for the industrial customer for several respects. Maintenance and extendability is one of the major benefits, and GUI programs can be maintained by office - type people with little skill. But isn't it dangerous to let come people over a complex control system who are not skilled, where is the benefit then? Simply imagine how Windows-2008 will look like, when the machines and plant installations are in the middle of their lifetime. What if the customer updates a particular "standard" application program to a newer version, will it cooperate with the other programs, even with the 12 year old Win95 system? No, it will not. One of my major competitos installs a unix system to the customers plants only to inhibit the damned freaks running their DOS and Win - games and infect the PC with viri. The drawback is the overhead, he needs a battery backup power supply and the boot in the morning and power down in the evening takes 20 minutes each. This is not a charge against GUI in general, but This is where the difficulty comes in to convince a customer about the difference between reliable plant control and office or laboratory applications, where trained people are sitting at the CRT, where flexibility and ease of modifications is more important than reliable workmanship. Our plant controls are designed to work 15 years, as opposed to the lab installation which will be broken up after three years of experiments together with all computer hard - and software. |
| . | . |
|
ACTUALLY THE DOWNLOAD PAGES DO NOT WORK. PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL |
||
|
||
| new (Jan-2000): some special utilities for the sysop and .BAT apps for free download. | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| links |
|
||||||||
| . |
|
||||||||
| . | . | ||||||||
| . | - | ||||||||
| . |
I have additional questions |