Allen Bradley PLC3 A.I. in Windows XP

[kbpatton]

I am trying to use DosBox to run AB A.I. software on a XP machine. The software runs but it can't access the activation files. Any ideas?
Any other ideas to successfully run this software on XP would be appreciated.

Keep in mind that running the software is not the problem, communicatioin with it is the problem. I was hoping that if the software was running in dosbox, I would be able to access communication hardware (i.e. PKTX card etc.) because XP will not allow this.

 

[Sergei Troizky]

Have you tried compatibility mode?

 

[curlyandshemp]

I am trying to use DosBox to run AB A.I. software on a XP machine. The software runs but it can't access the activation files. Any ideas?
Any other ideas to successfully run this software on XP would be appreciated.

Keep in mind that running the software is not the problem, communicatioin with it is the problem. I was hoping that if the software was running in dosbox, I would be able to access communication hardware (i.e. PKTX card etc.) because XP will not allow this.

did you MOUNT your drive with the A.I. files as c:?

If so , then DOSBox cannot access the activation files hidden on the real C:

Try mounting the A.I. files as MOUNT D C:\whereever your AI is
Then mount the REAL C MOUNT C C:\

This way DosBox can see a fake D drive and a fake C which is the real C

 

[kbpatton]

Compatibility mode has no effect.

 

[kbpatton]

Great idea to mount the drives as you suggested but unfortunately it did not work.

 

[Ken Roach]

I think the activation exercise is moot if you're actually trying to get AI-3 to use a 1784-KTX or -PKTX card.

AI-3 has only physical DOS-mode hardware drivers. Windows NT, 2000, and XP just do not allow them to access the ISA or PCI bus.

AI-3 did, in its last release (I think v6.26, in 1999) supported RSLinx under Windows NT. I don't know if any effort has been made to test that with RSLinx 2.5x and Windows XP.

All my users who still maintain PLC-3 controllers run vintage PC's from the recycle store with native DOS 6.22. We keep CD-mounted GHOST images around for disaster recovery.

 

[kbpatton]

I already have it working on a NT machine using Linx to access a KTX card. My plant ususally only authorizes new computers if they are networked and running XP, so that's why I'm trying so hard to get this software to run with XP.
My plant still uses T4 terminals via RS232 with Taylor/Topdoc printouts to view the databases so you can see why I'm trying to upgrade a bit.

 

[OZEE]

Ya know... I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet...

Just as you're having to deal with the obsolesence of the hardware that the software requires, you also need to deal with the obsolesence of the PLC3! You really need to be looking at converting that to something that can be supported!

 

[kbpatton]

I know it's easy to suggest replacing the PLC3s, but I'm dealing with 12 - 4 story transfer presses that run 24 hours a day. Not to mention the months of downtime and millions of dollars required to accomplish such a feat. I'd love to physically upgrade everything, and if it was a viable option, we would already be doing it.

 

[Ken Roach]

The way I see it, you don't need a new computer. You need an old computer.

When you're entering into the delicate conversations with your purchasing and IT staff, see if you can take them down to a control cabinet next to something massive, fast and roaring and explain to them what you do with these controls.

I find that many of them are amenable to variances in their authorization and procurement standards if you speak quietly and agree to purchase hardware that does not have Ethernet ports and therefore can never be connected to their plant network.

It's not an easy persuasion to accomplish, but worth the effort to get the tools you need.

 

[curlyandshemp]

Ya know... I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet...

Just as you're having to deal with the obsolesence of the hardware that the software requires, you also need to deal with the obsolesence of the PLC3! You really need to be looking at converting that to something that can be supported!

Easy to suggest, but many time in the real world hard to make so.

As you may know, sometimes when you have issues with a Clgx and RIO, you will get posts suggesting changing racks to C-Net.

Again, easy to suggest, not practical to do in the real world with a working plant

 

[OkiePC]

...When you're entering into the delicate conversations with your purchasing and IT staff, see if you can take them down to a control cabinet next to something massive, fast and roaring and explain to them what you do with these controls....

At my old job, in order to purchase anything PC related without having the IT department override our choices, we had to disguise the descriptions in our requests.

A PC became a "controller" and a monitor was called an "indicator panel". We would even use a third party vendor and pay a little extra so names like Dell and Gateway would not appear on the paperwork.

 

[OZEE]

Easy to suggest, but many time in the real world hard to make so.

As you may know, sometimes when you have issues with a Clgx and RIO, you will get posts suggesting changing racks to C-Net.

Again, easy to suggest, not practical to do in the real world with a working plant

Yes, you know that and I know that.

But... we also know that this obsolete dinosaur will also let its magic smoke out some day, then they're down for a long time. If they start designing a project now, much of the work can be done offline, then the conversion can be done intentionally, possibly in phases that can minimize down time.
It doesn't matter how the project is done, it's going to require the same amount of time. If they wait until the PLC3 is really broke down and they can't fix it, then they're down for the whole project time. If they start it now, they can schedule the conversion to fit into production requirements.

Obsolesence is a problem we all have to deal with...

 

[surferb]

Lol! Absolutely spot on as usual, Ken. It's not a PC that's controlling your transfer presses - it's part of an isolated system that doesn't need modernizing. That's one thing that the military is good at (which drives me up the wall at times).

The way I see it, you don't need a new computer. You need an old computer.

When you're entering into the delicate conversations with your purchasing and IT staff, see if you can take them down to a control cabinet next to something massive, fast and roaring and explain to them what you do with these controls.

I find that many of them are amenable to variances in their authorization and procurement standards if you speak quietly and agree to purchase hardware that does not have Ethernet ports and therefore can never be connected to their plant network.

It's not an easy persuasion to accomplish, but worth the effort to get the tools you need.

 

[surferb]

How delightfully asinine! I assume "working things out" with IT didn't cut it. Did you try going over their heads to describe the problem to management?

Gimme a call any time you need standard equipment rebadged and marked up ;-)

At my old job, in order to purchase anything PC related without having the IT department override our choices, we had to disguise the descriptions in our requests.

A PC became a "controller" and a monitor was called an "indicator panel". We would even use a third party vendor and pay a little extra so names like Dell and Gateway would not appear on the paperwork.