Dear Administrators, Moderators, & Members Multax found these post guidelines. Review them and then ask yourselves if these proposed rules at emastercam.com can raise the LEVEL of WRITTEN DEBATE to the level of a professional or academic journal? Each of them, often quite quickly, deteriorated into a flame war. There is a place here at this board for this sort of discussion but there is no place here for insults and narrow minded jingoism. I would like to re-open these discussions with several conditions. By posting in this thread you agree to the following conditions. 1) The thread will be moderated more stringently than normal. Only serious and thoughtful discussion will be permitted. Should you, in the opinion of the moderators, post something that does not live up to these standards your post will be edited or deleted. 2) You agree neither to flame nor troll. One flames by posting insulting and defamatory messages with the intention of eliciting a flood of angry responses. Trolling has similar intentions but involves posting absurd messages instead of insulting ones. 3) You agree to respect the opinions of other posters and treat them in a civil manner. If you disagree with someone you will respectfully articulate the terms of your disagreement without denigrating them. 4) The moderators may at any time amend these guidelines should the need present itself. 5) If you witness a violation of any of these guidelines please contact a moderator rather than responding to it yourself. 6) Mere assertion of opinion will not cut it here. If you have an opinion then you must back it up with evidence and careful argumentation. Any thread on a similar topic will be closed or merged into this thread. So let us begin. [ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

“They conducted themselved, [themselves] plain and simply, like adults by accepting the blame and rectifying the situation. Making yourself out to be a martyr is not helping your case, Multax.” Bullines, at what point did Multax use the word “martyr”??? Please, limit your comments to the WORDS written by Multax.

Dear Bryan Davis As you read this post understand that Multax failed to conduct the necessary research to determine the full implications of the word in question. Bryan Davis, if Multax has caused you any anger, discomfort, hurt, indignation, pain, or if Multax has defamed you in any way, for that Multax apologizes to you, and to you alone. Multax used the word “wanker” without a full understanding of it’s connotation and denotation. Bryan Davis, Multax did not use the appropriate word for the occasion and Multax certainly did not mean to impute your personal reputation or integrity with definition no. 1. a taboo term for somebody who xxxxes or no.2. unpleasant, self-indulgent, pretentious, or arrogant person. posted 09-11-2001 02:55 PM by Bryan Davis "It's amazing that the country that saved the world from the darkness of the Nazi's should be the object of this senseless and pointless hatred." As an e[E]nglish national I am absolutely stunned that you could write this. “Whilst its probably true that without the USA entering the war the outcome would have been much different, its also true that the England stood all but alone against Nazi Germany, . . . NOT true, President Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress AT GREAT POLITICAL RISK and stated with a slight paraphrase; we can not and we will not allow Britain to fall. After this address, President Roosevelt instituted the “Lend Lease” program to ship arms, munitions, planes, trucks, and other supplies. I could be in error, however, I believe that the U.S. commenced it’s logistical support of England in 1940. After the war the U.S. FED both ENGLAND and GERMANY and prevented MASS starvation in both countries. 1948 brought the Marshall Plan and America’s rebuilding of Europe. and it took Japan, bombing Pearl Harbour to persuade the (American people) USA to abandon its policy of isolationism.” --------------------------------------------- “I am very sorry to say that I cant help but feel that its this kind of arrogance that makes your nation such a target.” Bryan Davis, I should have called you on this last statement in September. However, NOW I shall take the opportunity to do so. Your above statement violates every tenet of decency and civilization. It is hateful in the extreme and borders on evil. You had the temerity to spew these vile words on the very day that six thousand people, mostly Americans, along with citizens from eighty other countries suffered the horrors of incineration in an office building. How do you sleep at night? God only knows. I DEFY anyone to show me how this statement DOES NOT transgress the letter and spirit of the rule that governs speech on this forum. Bryan Davis, I hereby empathically state that your scurrilous statement knowingly violated the agreement not to use this “BB to post any material which is. . . defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane”. Multax did find your WORDS unpleasant, self-indulgent, pretentious, and arrogant in your responses and criticism of the United States in relation to the WTC terrorist attack. Multax also found the WORDS and IDEAS you used to express your criticism of Windows as the usual pompous sniping of the UGLY EUROPEAN. ------------------------------------------- Dear Webmaster and Dave Thompson “You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.” Multax used the word, “wanker”, apparently a vulgar term as Marco has demonstrated. Multax cannot and will not offer any Clintonisque excuses for the violation of the above stated rules. However, Multax finds it interesting that the “WEBMASTER” has trotted out the RULES in this case. Punish Multax as you will, but remember, more than a few of your other members have VIOLATED the above stated rules. IF you punish Multax, and FAIL to punish ALL former violators of the above stated rules in a like manner, then all of you, Bullines, Dave Thomson, Greg McKay, Jamie Mattison, and the WEBMASTER have proven themselves to lack the temperament, judgement, and objectivity to properly administer and moderate emastercam.com. [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

quote: -------------------------------------------- Chill out wanker! Don’t you have a sense of humor??? -------------------------------------------- "I'm all for heated debates and conversation, but let's not resort to name-calling and direct insults." My dictionary does not have the word "wanker" in it. Please give me a short and concise reading of it's current meaning and useage. [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

“Dear ex-colonialist who needs a reality check” quote: “MasaterCAM is NOT the worlds best/fastest/ most flexible CAM package!” You heretic!!! “so burn me!” Chill out wanker! Don’t you have a sense of humor??? “dare I mention Delcam?, but that’s not my argument... given an unlimited budget and projects that justified such an exercise what would be the CAM package and platform that the informed engineer would opt for? I don’t know the answer to this as its not an exercise I’ve needed to do, but I would be very surprised if the end result was MasterCAM, in fact I’ve doubts that it would be any PC based package.” Delcam, an excellent CAM package, however, we have UG and NCCS. Both of these CAM packages have P.C. based versions and can calculate true simultaneous FIVE-AXIS toolpaths. quote: The CURRENT Mac OS uses the Berkeley UNIX kernel and the SunSparc cannot even begin to compete with the Alpha21264, PA-RISC8700, or POWER4 RISC cpu’s. “Is that a fact, well you again are ignoring the point, that is unless you are prepared to stand up and say that the PC is the worlds best platform.” Mac’s and SparcStations qualify as “P.C.’s” Again, have your blokes developed anything better that the X86 Windows based P.C.??? “I am somewhat relieved that you may concede the shortcommings of windows, maybe 'our guys' currently don’t have anything better, but we will always be able to say we had the first as to others well, there have always been better OS than windows!” [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Dear British Subject “MasaterCAM is NOT the worlds best/fastest/most flexible CAM package!” You heretic!!! --------------------------------------------- “Is windows the worlds best operatingsystem..give me a break of course it is not! That maybe true, tell me though, have your blokes developed a superior OS!!!!!!!!!!!! --------------------------------------------- “if the crowd wanted faster computers, or better operating systems then we would all be using apple macs or sunsparcs.” The CURRENT Mac OS uses the Berkeley UNIX kernel and the SunSparc cannot even begin to compete with the Alpha21264, PA-RISC8700, or POWER4 RISC cpu’s. --------------------------------------------- Dear Bullines Can you address these questions? 1. Perhaps Microsoft’s 64 bit XP OS can run BOTH 32 bit and 64 bit software concurrently or sequentially??? 2. Under what conditions would Mastercam need a gigabyte or more of RAM??? As an example, Bullines, take the most complex surfaced machined part you’ve ever programed and change the stepover parameter to .0001". With a stepover that small will not the following resources determine the overall compute time; 1. OS? 2. Quality of the code within Mastercam? 3. FPU capabilities? 4. CPU frequency? 5. Total amount of CPU resources allocated to Mastercam? 6. Total amount of RAM allocated to Mastercam? 7. Memory bandwidth? 8. Memory latency? 9. Please add any factor I may have missed! 3. When will Mastercam have NURBS toolpath generation capabilities? --------------------------------------------- Dear & V9 Enthusiast! Tell us V9 Enthusiast, did you read Mr. Weber’s presentation??? “The other thing I was thinking about, this really is not the forum to debate the technical merits of one CPU architecture over another.” 1. Why not? 2. Who cares what you think!!! Remember, your employer DOES not care about what you think, they pay YOU for what you KNOW and what you can DO to enhance their profit margin!!! 3. When did you become Dave Thomson, Greg McKay, or Jamie Mattison??? “there is still not a 64-bit RISC CPU for the masses chip on the horizon” Very true, however, Intel has designed their Itanic with a totally new architecture called EPIC. “The applications just aren't there for it either and most software developers are not rushing out to develop software for this chipset that may not even be viable for the masses(meaning CHEAP!!!! ) for another 5-6 years.” 1. A chipset provides electronic support for a CPU 2. Very true, the Itanic does not qualify as a CHEAP!!!! cpu. “X86 still has some life and at current pricing, even higher -end PC's are certainly affordable for the masses.” 1. Mr. Weber’s presentation quite clearly demonstrates AMD’s faith in the X86 achitecture and his presentation also demonstrates their X86 enhancements at the 32 and 64 bit levels. Furthermore, AMD will allow the end user, that's you V9 enthusiast, the ability to buy a Hammer based system and run your 32 bit apps and upgrade to a 64 bit OS at your leisure. 2. The Hammer upon introduction will probably debut at a $1,000 or less per cpu. 3. Who knows & V9 Enthusiast, the Hammer just might provide such an awesome Mastercam seed increase, perhaps even YOU, an Intelphile, might buy one and sing it's praises [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

A lite presentation for the erudite reader! -------------------------------------------- ........Here we go again........... So, who's got an extra 50-60 hours to burn doing research? Any takers????? -------------------------------------------- Should not all instructors conduct research as part of their personal and professional development and as a responsibility to their students? http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/Virtual...15_3923,00.html Fred Weber Hammer Presentation [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Now that the 64 bit Windows XP OS, Intel’s Itanium CPU, and Mastercam’s V9 have arrived on the CAM scene. Can anyone present a WELL-REASONED, DOCUMENTED, and WELL WRITTEN argument against or in favor of the development of a 64 bit Mastercam that runs on Microsoft’s 64 bit Windows XP OS and Intel’s 64 bit Itanium CPU? AMD’s Thunderbird and Palomino cpu’s have proven that they have a significant performance advantage over INTEL’S PIII and PIV cpu’s in a clock for clock comparison in most scientific, graphics, and compute intensive applications as a result of AMD’s superior FPU implementation and other architectural improvements in Intel’s X86 architecture. AMD’s Claw and Sledge Hammer CPU’s will prove themselves as the best architecture in terms of value and perhaps even in performance for Mastercam in comparison tests with Intel’’s IA64 in 2002, and maybe in future years as well. AMD’s Hammer CPU’s use their version of Intel’s 32 bit architecture, and their 64 bit architecture will represent the FIRST ever development and deployment of a non-Intel extension to the X86 architecture. I doubt CNC Software can afford to develop and deploy their FIRST ever 64-bit program that can only run on Intel’s IA64 platform that in my opinion will cost between SIX and EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for a SINGLE cpu workstation upon introduction. Would CNC Software FORCE its users to choose Intel only platforms??? Recent threads have shown that many Mastercam user’s budgets have difficulty with sub five-hundred dollar video cards! Mr. Jay freely admitted that many customers buy the cheapest X86 box they can find. For an informal poll, let every user on emastercam answer this question. If CNC Software deployed Mastercam 9 or 10 as a Windows XP IA64 only app, and my prediction of system cost comes true, how many freelance Mastercam programmers, small business owners, and employers can, will, or want to pay the above predicted price to change platforms? In addition, what if Intel decides to build RDRAM only IA64 chipsets, or worse yet, what if Intel decides to implement a proprietary memory technology that they control? Intel’s web site states that, “Itanium processors will feature 2 and 4 MB of L3 cache and 800 and 733 MHz frequency speeds at prices ranging from $1,177 to $4,227.”” Consequently, ONE 800MHz Itanium CPU with 4 MB of L3 cache will COST $4,227 dollars and ONE 733MHz Itanium CPU with 2 MB of L3 cache will COST $1,177 dollars! Well, guess what INTEL LIED, the following prices came from Price Watch and represent current Itanium CPU pricing; 733mhz 2mb cache Itanium $3012 PC Nation Computer Warehouse Club 1-800-969-5255, Itanium i733 733mhz 2mb cache $3160 1-800- 969-5255, and a Itanium 800mhz 4mb cache $6726 800-969-5255 [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Multax ] [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Multax found this post at another website. All members at emastercam.com should keep this in mind when they post. --------------------------------------------- When a person expresses himself on the internet, he does so using the written word. He can only rely on the impression he gives by using his ability to write coherently. If you want to continue to give the impression that you're uneducated, so be it. It's your choice. ---------------------------------------------

An open letter to ALL Peace Loving and Law-Abiding Muslims that live in the USA. What do you think law-abiding and peace loving Muslims that have immigrated to the USA can do to assist law-enforcement in the identification, penetration, and capture of ALL remaining MUSLIM terrorist cells and their members that remain in the USA? REMEMBER, we have Muslims that live in and visit the USA that HATE America, Americans, and Americanism. This subgroup of the Muslim population that resides in the USA contribute MONEY, JOBS, REFUGE, and other resources that aide and abet these sub-human MONSTERS of MALEVOLENCE in their present and perhaps future terrorist activities. __________________

Multax would like ALL emastercam.com members to know Multax did not WRITE ANY OF THE WORDS to “A Philosophy of Work” and “A Philosophy of Work: Part II - Attitude”. However, Multax did write the titles. Multax posted these segments taken from a lecture given by “an American Philosopher” in order to raise the level of discourse from the mundane to the sublime. A Philosophy of Work: Part II - Attitude Practice your attitude And I know attitude is a difficult assignment. It was one of my most difficult assignments twenty-five years ago when I found out that attitude was everything. That attitude determines the direction you take, attitude determines how you TALK, how you WALK, how you DRESS, its all attitude. It was difficult, its difficult to look up attitude in the yellow pages and find out where to get help, right? If you could put your car in the shop and go next door and get your attitude tuned-up wouldn’t that be nice? You see, attitude is something you can work on everyday. It’s surprising how uniquely confident you can feel when you are working on the things that really count as far as emotions and your interchange with other people, affecting their behavior and mostly affecting your own. J.R. [ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Now then Mr. Schultz taught me that the greatest reason for setting a goal was not to acquire the goal, and when I understood THAT, it revolutionized my whole life!!! The major purpose of the goal is not in obtaining the goal, obtaining the goal is the secondary value. The major value in going for the goal IS, what it makes of you in the pursuit of IT. The greatest value is not what you GET, but what you BECOME!!! It’s not what you go after, what you go after soon disappears. It’s what you become that counts!!! What we all must make sure of, is that the things that we’re going for is making something unique out of us in the pursuit of all of this!!! Now it also means that in order to have more YOU’VE got to become more!!! You see some people have the wrong philosophy, the guy says if oh I had a good job I’d really poor it on, but I’ve got this lousy job so I just goof off!!! See if that’s your philosophy then you are DESTINED to stay there... The major thing is what happens to you!!! Now here is also the WARNING, and the warning says, beware of what YOU BECOME in pursuit of what YOU WANT!!! You’ve got to be careful. Whatever you are doing make sure it’s making something unique out of you!!! J.R. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Dear Beav700 I find your project compelling and in the best spirit of American ingenuity, perhaps my suggestions and OPINIONS can help you complete a successful project. Beav700, many of the respondents to your thread have proffered what type of metal to use for you indexable end mill. If you have the time, try to locate an authoritative and recently published 2000 or later metal’s handbook and compile a table that lists ALL of the metallic properties of each metal type listed by the post respondents, in fact you might even find a better type of metal in an exhaustive source. With this list, you should have enough data to eliminate most of the suggested metals and thus you can narrow your choices to three or less. The material’s handbook should cover heat-treatment and help you decide if the material you have chosen can benefit from heat treatment in general and what TYPE of heat-treatment in particular will produce the qualities YOU want your end mill to have. Beav700, you may want to READ the numerous articles printed in the “Modern Applications News” magazine www.modernapplicationsnews.com. from the December 1998 issue on that covers heat treatment technology. The March 1999 issue on page 92 covers deep cryogenic treatment to -300̊F. This process might provide most or all of the strength and hardness properties you desire in your indexable end mill. Finally, when you have decided what type of metal you want to use, YOU MUST BUY THE FINEST FORGED BAR STOCK MONEY CAN BUY, preferably a piece of bar stock that has a BIRTH CERTIFICATE! In terms of indexable end mill design, you may want to produce an exact copy of your present Kennametal or Sandvik tooling or find an existing indexable end mill design that you like. That will allow you to use THEIR cutting data as a baseline to start from and allow you to accelerate the development process as a consequence of your introduction of two NEW variables into the cutting data equation. Remember Beav700, even with an EXACT copy of your present Kennametal or Sandvik, or brand X tooling, you have introduced two significant changes, the type of metal and its hardness and grain structure. This can cause the cutting environment your inserts operate under to change from the insignificant to the profound. So, proceed with great CAUTION when you attempt your first cut with your new cutting toy. I have melted, shattered, and snapped the flutes off too many high quality end mills to joyride with an unproven toy tool. Beav700, use your common sense when you make your first cuts and parts with this tool, treat this new and UNPROVEN tool as though you had a hand grenade in your hand with the pin pulled!!! Beav700, you do not want to add your tool project to the recent CRASH thread!!! Make sure you speak to the technical support people at Kennametal and Sandvik and squeeze every once of information and data they have on your chosen inserts. You MUST know every chemical and mechanical aspect of these inserts that affects cutting performance and safety. If your machine has through the spindle coolant capabilities, make sure your indexable end mills have the proper passages to utilize pressurized coolant. However, ask the tech people if YOUR chosen inserts can withstand the thermal shock of coolant in a cutting environment. I hope my suggestions and OPINIONS can help lead you in the right direction, however, do not trust anyone and PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH to confirm or destroy EVERYONE’S OPINIONS!!! Multax Dear Gcode Thank you for an extremely good laugh! “This is just an opinion with zero science behind it so Multax may have me shot” Thank you again for an extremely good laugh! “OT: James, you'd best watch it with those opinions! You'll be standing next to me when Multax puts us against the wall.” [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

The post that follows represents a private conversation between Multax and Meyette. Dear Mr. Meyette Multax challenged your first amendment knowledge, and your inchoate mind responded with, "so I will respond to what I feel is important and ignore the chaff." Mr. Meyette, a feeble and shallow mind can easily parrot the words of others. Please remind the emastercam.com community of one topic that you have started or commented on that has greater significance than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Meyette, the following statement as written by you would lead people to believe that you desire civility and use measured words, “And on another note, I'd appreciate keeping the personal attacks at a minimum. This is a pretty friendly community and we'd like to keep it that way.” However your latest statement betrays you, “Evidently, somebody's panties are in a bunch, or somebody peed in their Cheerio's. LOL.” However, your allusions to women’s clothing and a bodily function clearly demonstrate your lowbrow vocabulary. “I do not need Webby to defend me. His assertion that I did not want to respond to your infantile "pissing" contest (for lack of a better term) was right on the mark.” Mr. Meyette, again, your churlish vocabulary clearly demonstrates an inability to communicate politely and present yourself as a man among men with class. I do not believe, I cannot believe, that you would invite anyone into your home on a consistent basis to speak to your wife and children with the same vulgar speech that you have and continue to use on this forum. Any response would not have served any purpose other than to acknowledge your BANE existance here in this forum and to supplant your incessant need to express yourself in a manner that attempts to put yourself where you don't belong. 1bane ˈbān n [ME, fr. OE bana; akin to OHG bano death, Av banta ill] (bef. 12c) 1 a obs : KILLER, SLAYER b : POISON c : DEATH, DESTRUCTION d : woe 2 : a source of harm or ruin : CURSE Mr. Meyette, in what sense do YOU use bane in the above sentence? “. . . to supplant your incessant need to express yourself in a manner that attempts to put yourself where you don't belong.” Please elaborate! “Furthermore, speaking in third person is generally not necessary here.” Why? quote: ....Multax does not boast.... _____________________________________________ It seems, well,.... a bit, childish How so, Mr. Meyette? P.S. Mr. Meyette You mentioned that you listen to heavy metal, tell me, what musical form serves as the foundation of rock n’ roll? Multax [ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Old Testament linear measures c. Span (outstretched hand from thumb to little finger): three handbreaths or half a cubit 9in/230mm (actually 228.6mm) d. Cubit (elbow to finger-tip) 17.5/445mm (actually 444.5mm) The long cubit was a handbreath longer 20.4/520mm (actually 518.16mm) 6 cubits = 1 reed New Testament linear measures Cubit 21.6/550mm (actually 548.64mm) David Alexander and Pat Alexander, ed., Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible (New York: Guideposts, 1973), 193. Multax

Well, Gee... Multax, I didn't know I was going to get a lecture on English, Grammer, machine technology, and what ever else you might be trying to show off here... but let me restate my, um... opinion, one more time for you... --------------------------------------------- Dear Rekd Multax’s post had two distinct sections, each addressed to two different people. Unfortunately, your English reading comprehension has failed you! The section addressed to you, Rekd, did not mention that you need improvements in (“I didn't know I was going to get a lecture on English, Grammar” English punctuation, syntax, and spelling. However, section two labeled as Dear Rekd presented a challenge to your ASSERTIONS and OPINIONS and outlined a test method to determine the CNC VMC that produces the best surface finishes. Rekd, your response did not address that section. Perhaps you do not recognize the described protocol and cannot apply it to the discussion at hand. Multax does not “show off here...” at emastercam.com. And as for your opinion, you should express it, the Webmaster notwithstanding. However Rekd, always remember that your employer and/or clients did not hire YOU for your OPINIONS. They hired you based on your interview performance and resume. Your resume lists your past and present work experiences, accomplishments, awards, and references. These combined elements describe your KNOWLEDGE and ability to perform as a professional cnc programmer. They most certainly do describe your OPINIONS! Workplace politics aside, I would hope that you, Rekd, want your workplace performance judged on what you KNOW and what you can DO, not on your OPINIONS! As for the Boston Digital VMC’s that you seem too chary, they to, do not trade in OPINIONS, the Mastercam CADCAM program does not give a wit about your opinions. Opinion based programming + opinion-based machining practices = ONE DEAD BOSTON DIGITAL VMC! When someone posts a question or a request at emastercam.com about computers, machining, posts, programming, or another technical subject, unless they specifically request an opinion, they do not or should not have any interest in the respondent’s FEELINGS, OPINIONS, or WHAT THEY THINK. They want answers ASAP, based on what you, the respondent KNOWS. Nothing more and nothing less! The response should appear in a clear, concise, and well-written sentence or paragraph that solves the problem based on KNOWLEDGE or independently verifiable information, and not I think, or maybe, or perhaps, or IMHO. Multax --------------------------------------------- quote: My (suppressed) opinions are, as I stated, my (suppressed) opinions. They are based on my short career (15 years or so) as a machinist/programmer in the USA, on the machines I've ran before. And BD is, in my (suppressed) opinion, THE BEST. Period. Now, what part of my opinion did you not understand??? Also... What part of; quote: ...on the machines I've ran before did you ALSO not understand??? Given the knowledge of my experience, however short it may be, and the performance of the different machines I have ran... I will state it ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU... BD is, in MY OWN SUPPRESSED OPINION... the best, PERIOD!!! I have made my decisions on my OWN PERSONAL EXPERIANCE, and that's it. --------------------------------------------- Stop trying to make this into a peeing contest, Rekd, Multax does not boast, nor does Multax engage in ###### contests, Multax simply states what Multax can corroborate with independently verifiable information. --------------------------------------------- because we're probably not interested in you self proclaimed supreme knowledge of the subject of which machine is better than which, Rekd, please show us your erudite mind and demonstrate to the emastercam.com community in which sentence Multax claims or uses any of the words in this sentence “self proclaimed supreme knowledge of the subject of which machine is better than which,” --------------------------------------------- and who can complete a sentence or not. Multax’s post had two distinct sections, each addressed to two different people. Unfortunately, your English reading comprehension powers have failed you! The section addressed to you, Rekd, did not mention that you need improvements in (“I didn't know I was going to get a lecture on English, Grammar” English punctuation, syntax, and spelling. --------------------------------------------- Dear Gcode OT: I see they've added private messaging, Instant Graemlins [GREMLINS] and Instant UBB code. What we reall [REALLY] need is a BIG IGNORE BUTTON Multax

Dear Mr. Meyette, The Constitutional Enthusiast You have claimed enthusiasm for the U.S. Constitution. Now you will have an opportunity to prove whether you represent an intelligent and well-informed commentator or an ignorant fool. Meyette, you paraphrased one of the statements used to describe the limits of the First Amendment, you can’t yell fire in a crowed theater, please do show us your erudite intellect and give us the name of the person that first uttered that statement in addition to the place and circumstances that gave rise to its discussion. I hope this time you can give us a serious answer to a vital topic and not hide behind the Webmaster and others that defend you when you fail to conceptualize and articulate intelligent, informed, and well-written answers to serious questions. Mr. Meyette, if a student in your Mastercam class demonstrated a consistent predilection for errors in all phases of CAM programming, you would fail them and rightfully so. In addition, you have mentioned that you had modified some 200 posts as a Mastercam sales representative. Post Processor Editing requires the utmost care in punctuation, syntax, spelling, and format. With that in mind Mr. Meyette, why do you find it so difficult to write and send posts to emastercam.com with complete sentences, paragraphs, and correctly spelled words? Mastercam’s Post Processor functionality does not tolerate infantile punctuation, syntax, spelling, and format errors. Mr. Meyette, can you explain what diagnostic test results a ball bar can and cannot give? Can you tell us what type of instrument you would use to measure the surface finish of a part? Dear Rekd You failed to comprehend this statement, “Consequently, your assertion requires a volume of VERIFIABLE test data that you probably do not posses.” Consequently, I will explain this statement in a manner that even you will understand. You assert in the form of an absolute statement that Boston Digital produces the best surface finishes of any CNC VMC in the world. In order to validate that assertion, you would have to test at the minimum. Every high-end three axis CNC VMC with approximately the same X, Y, Z travels in a temperature controlled test facility. In addition, every machine would have to have matched tool holders from the same manufacturer and have the same tool holder design, BT, CATV, or HSK. Every tool holder would have to have matched inserts with the correct coating, design, and grade from the same manufacturer to cut the test material. The test must include matched part material. It would help if every machine had the same control, then you could eliminate the quality of the post-processor and the control as a variable. Every machine would have to have ball screws from the same manufacturer with the same grade, design, and pitch. Every machine would have to have the same servo motors, spindle motors, and linear guides for those machines that have linear guides. The test part programs must come from the same CADCAM system with matched feeds, speeds, and doc’s. The listed specifications for the test would eliminate most, but not all of the variables. Consequently, once the test specification has eliminated ALL variables, except one, the impact that the design, quality of materials, and overall build quality of each machinetool has on the part finish. Then the test can determine which machine tool can produce the best surface finish. Rekd, once you have completed this extensive CNC VMC comparison test, and if the Boston Digital VMC of your choice wins the test, then your assertion will have earned its validity. Until then, you have simply voiced your opinion. --------------------------------------------- Since I haven't ran, or even HEARD of some of the machines you're boasting, I can hardly make an experienced claim to it's capabilities/pricing. --------------------------------------------- Rekd, I do not boast, I simply state what I can corroborate with independently verifiable information. The fact that you have not even HEARD of some of the machines that I have mentioned in my post speaks volumes about your knowledge of machine tools. Multax [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Multax ]

Dear Rekd Although Boston Digital builds America’s BEST VMC for close tolerance work with exceptional surface finishes, to declare that “BD is the premier surfacing center. Period.” requires that you defend an absolute statement. Consequently, your assertion requires a volume of VERIFIABLE test data that you probably do not posses. REMEMBER Rekd, I completely agree that Boston Digital builds EXCEPTIONALLY accurate 3, 4, and 5 axis VMC’s, among the very best in the world. However, I believe that in a machine off between a 3 axis Makino V55 and a 3 axis Boston Digital, poor Tony would have BLOODY chips all over the floor!!! Now, for the MOST ACCURATE VMC in the world; Société Genevoise d' Instruments de Physique’s SIP 5000. Fadal? Pffft. HAAS? hrmmm. Boston Digital? Now you're talking! But you can buy 3 or 4 Fadals or HAAS' for the price of 1 BD. I've ran Mori's, but not surfaced with them. If money is no object, BD all the way. Otherwise, HAAS or maybe Kitamura. (A bit more pricy than HAAS, but don't plan on seeing the repair guy around, cuz they don't break very often.) BD? Excellent Machine Mitsui Seiki? Likewise SIP? Now you're talking! But you can buy 3 or 4 BD’s for the price of 1 SIP. If money is no object, SIP all the way. Otherwise, Kuraki or maybe Kitamura. (A bit more pricy than HAAS, but don't plan on seeing the repair guy around, cuz they don't break very often.) Again Rekd, you have shown a zeal for Boston Digital equaled or exceeded only by Mr. Meyette’s zealousness for Mastercam. However, I can understand your BLOODLUST for Boston Digital’s machines. Dear Tony Tony, if at all possible, buy a used 98 or later 3 axis BD, 3 axis V55 Makino, or visit PrestigeEquipment.Com, they have a 1998 OKK PCV-55 Ref #10468. Multax

Dear Mr. Meyette You stated in a previous post that “To dispel your "rabid Intel Defender" myth, I would not recommend a P4 at this time. Many applications do not take advantage of the chipset at this time and most Developers (that I have heard from) are at this time putting more development into 64Bit RISC Apps. Which is a far better solution than even AMD's excellent offerings at this time. If I had one single recommendation to CNC Software besides the full Windows API, it would be to develop for 64Bit RISC architecture.” And a bug-free and complete Open GL implementation as well! However, Intel’s IA64 CPU DOES not use RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) architecture, it most definitely leans toward CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) in it’s complexity. Intel has chosen to completely abandon their 32-bit x86 architecture as their primer architecture with their co-development of the new EPIC (Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing) architecture with HP. Consequently, Mr. Meyette, your desire for a RISC driven Mastercam on an IA64 platform cannot happen. The paragraph that follows comes from a technically historical article that covers the major RISC players and their architectures. ------------------------------------------- The simple elimination of Alpha on its own would have been a positive development for the remaining RISC players, IBM and Sun. It removes a potentially powerful competitor as well as provides an opportunity to pick up disgruntled Compaq customers. But Compaq’s course of action makes all Alpha IP, and potentially most of the accumulated Alpha design experience, available to Intel at little cost. The direct processor implementation know-how that the Alpha design group encompasses may be of marginal immediate value to the IA64 effort, because Alpha’s minimalist RISC and IA64's EPIC architectural and design philosophies are diametrically opposed. ------------------------------------------- AMD’s Claw and Sledge Hammer CPU’s will prove themselves as the best architecture in terms of value and perhaps even in performance for Mastercam in comparison tests with Intel’s IA64 in 2002, and maybe in future years as well. AMD’s Hammer CPU’s use their version of Intel’s 32 bit architecture and their 64 bit, architecture will represent the FIRST ever development and deployment of a non-Intel extension to the X86 architecture. I doubt CNC Software can afford to develop and deploy their FIRST ever 64-bit program that can only run on Intel’s IA64 platform that in my opinion will cost between SIX and EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for a SINGLE cpu workstation upon introduction. Although I did not participate in the eighty’s era of high-end CAM that required a UNIX box that cost between twenty-five and fifty thousand dollars and UNIX OS expertise; I cannot imagine that CNC Software would FORCE its users to choose Intel only platforms. Recent threads have shown that many Mastercam user’s budgets have difficulty with sub five-hundred dollar video cards! Mr. Jay freely admitted that many customers buy the cheapest X86 box they can find. For an informal poll, let every user on emastercam answer this question. If CNC Software deployed Mastercam 9 or 10 as a Windows XP IA64 only app, and my prediction of system cost comes true, how many freelance Mastercam programmers, small business owners, and employers can, will, or want to pay the above predicted price to change platforms? In addition, what if Intel decides to build RDRAM only IA64 chipsets, or worse yet, what if Intel decides to implement a proprietary memory technology that they control? Intel’s web site states that, “Itanium processors will feature 2 and 4 MB of L3 cache and 800 and 733 MHz frequency speeds at prices ranging from $1,177 to $4,227.” Consequently, ONE 800MHz Itanium CPU with 4 MB of L3 cache will COST $4,227 dollars and ONE 733MHz Itanium CPU with 2 MB of L3 cache will COST $1,177 dollars! Mr. Meyette, you have also stated “Which RISC? Intel of course. You know it will be somewhat reasonably priced and will belong to the masses. DEC Alpha would be nice but I believe that chip will stay in the realm of servers and the like.” Mr. Meyette, do you believe the above stated Intel prices represent an acceptable price performance ratio? I do not believe that Mastercam users want an Intel only solution at an astronomical price? Do you? Multax

Dear Mr. Meyette You stated in a previous post that “To dispel your "rabid Intel Defender" myth, I would not recommend a P4 at this time. Many applications do not take advantage of the chipset at this time and most Developers (that I have heard from) are at this time putting more development into 64Bit RISC Apps. Which is a far better solution than even AMD's excellent offerings at this time. If I had one single recommendation to CNC Software besides the full Windows API, it would be to develop for 64Bit RISC architecture.” And a bug-free and complete Open GL implementation as well! However, Intel’s IA64 CPU DOES not use RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) architecture, it most definitely leans toward CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) in it’s complexity. Intel has chosen to completely abandon their 32-bit x86 architecture as their premiere architecture with their co-development of the new EPIC (Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing) architecture with HP. Consequently, Mr. Meyette, your desire for a RISC driven Mastercam on an IA64 platform cannot happen. The paragraph that follows comes from a technically historical article that covers the major RISC players and their architectures. -------------------------------------------- The simple elimination of Alpha on its own would have been a positive development for the remaining RISC players, IBM and Sun. It removes a potentially powerful competitor as well as provides an opportunity to pick up disgruntled Compaq customers. But Compaq’s course of action makes all Alpha IP, and potentially most of the accumulated Alpha design experience, available to Intel at little cost. The direct processor implementation know-how that the Alpha design group encompasses may be of marginal immediate value to the IA64 effort, because Alpha’s minimalist RISC and IA64's EPIC architectural and design philosophies are diametrically opposed. ------------------------------------------- AMD’s Claw and Sledge Hammer CPU’s will prove themselves as the best architecture in terms of value and perhaps even in performance for Mastercam in comparison tests with Intel’s IA64 in 2002, and maybe in future years as well. AMD’s Hammer CPU’s use their version of Intel’s 32 bit architecture and their 64 bit, architecture will represent the FIRST ever development and deployment of a non-Intel extension to the X86 architecture. I doubt CNC Software can afford to develop and deploy their FIRST ever 64-bit program that can only run on Intel’s IA64 platform that in my opinion will cost between SIX and EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for a SINGLE cpu workstation upon introduction. I cannot imagine that CNC Software would FORCE its users to choose Intel only platforms. Recent threads have shown that many Mastercam user’s budgets have difficulty with sub five-hundred dollar video cards! Mr. Jay freely admitted that many customers buy the cheapest X86 box they can find. For an informal poll, let every user on emastercam answer this question. If CNC Software deployed Mastercam 9 or 10 as a Windows XP IA64 only app, and my prediction of system cost comes true, how many freelance Mastercam programmers, small business owners, and employers can, will, or want to pay the above predicted price to change platforms? In addition, what if Intel decides to build RDRAM only IA64 chipsets, or worse yet, what if Intel decides to implement a proprietary memory technology that they control? Intel’s web site states that, “Itanium processors will feature 2 and 4 MB of L3 cache and 800 and 733 MHz frequency speeds at prices ranging from $1,177 to $4,227.” Consequently, ONE 800MHz Itanium CPU with 4 MB of L3 cache will COST $4,227 dollars and ONE 733MHz Itanium CPU with 2 MB of L3 cache will COST $1,177 dollars! Mr. Meyette, you have also stated “Which RISC? Intel of course. You know it will be somewhat reasonably priced and will belong to the masses. DEC Alpha would be nice but I believe that chip will stay in the realm of servers and the like.” Mr. Meyette, do you believe the above stated Intel prices represent an acceptable price performance ratio? I do not believe that Mastercam users want an Intel only solution at an astronomical price? Do you? Multax [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 07-05-2001).] [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 07-05-2001).]

Dear Mr. Meyette Mr. Meyette, I certainly hope that the four of you will collaborate on a Mastercam benchmark. That benchmark would prove invaluable for ALL Mastercam users! -------------------------------------------- I prefer to read reviews from the Mastercam users in this forum. They are much more relevant than reviews elsewhere. Granted, the reviews in here are not really spec driven, they are more subjective, but I'll take the subjective opinion of a Mastercam user any day over that of some other CAD/CAM/CAE user. What works for them may or may not work for us. That's just the way it is. -------------------------------------------- Mr. Meyette, in light of your above statement, can you see the need and value of a Mastercam benchmark that will accomplish what you have just stated. Multax [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 07-02-2001).]

Dear Mr. Meyette Now that’s a post and a response worthy of the name!!! I agree that Mastercam on a 64bit RISC chip would bring tears of joy to your hot rod heart!!! However, the question becomes, which 64bit RISC chip do you like Mr. Meyette? Sun’s SPARC chip? Too expensive and slow. IBM’s POWER3? Too expensive. HP’s PA-RISC? Discontinued upon the introduction of Intel’s Itanic (Itanium). MIPS? Too slow. DEC’s Alpha? Undefeated and Undisputed SPEED champ of the RISC world! Bought by Intel from Compaq! CNC Software’s OS choice, a 64 bit Linux, Windows XP, or a Unix. I do not have sufficient information on Linux to render an informed opinion. What do you think about Linux, Mr. Meyette? Personally, I believe that most Mastercam users would prefer Windows XP. Unix, too complicated and expensive. Consequently, CNC Software’s choices seem limited. If they want a 64bit Windows app they must write one that runs on either AMD’s Hammer or Intel’s Itanic. A 64bit Windows APP on a 64 bit RISC CPU is simply out of the question. Mr. Meyette, what do your inside sources at CNC Software tell you? Will Mastercam users see a 64bit Windows XP app with a new database, multithreaded, and tuned for SMP? Will they build an app that can use RAID 0 + 1, striping and mirroring? Mr. Meyette, how much improvement do you see in Mastercam’s ability to generate toolpaths and render a solid or a surface in a SMP environment? For example, toolpath X, a scallop finish toolpath takes 5 min on your server with one Pentium II 350 CPU installed. What toolpath calculation time would you expect after you install the second CPU and update the HAL? Mr. Meyette, do you recommend the use of SolidEdge for CAD in conjunction with Mastercam’s CAM capabilities? Mr. Meyette, now that AMD has achieved a level of reliability and performance that merits your serious consideration, may I suggest that you visit tomshardware.com and amdzone.com on a weekly basis to stay abreast of AMD and Intel developments. Their reviews and links will supply you with a cornucopia of knowledge. However, before you buy a Tyan K7 Thunder MB, you might consider an update to your current Mastercam box with a SIS 735 based motherboard ($125) with a single Thunderbird 1.4GHz CPU ($190), and 512Megs of DDR RAM from Kentron $375. Test it and see if you like it.Post your results and compare them with your 800MHz Pentium III box. By the way, Mr. Meyette, you can buy a GeForce based Elsa Gloria II for about $150 on Ebay. Mr. Meyette, I certainly hope that the four of you will collaborate on a Mastercam benchmark. That benchmark would prove invaluable for ALL Mastercam users! Wrong, bad answer, Mr. Meyette. I am quite sure that you can answer for, speak for, think for, and defend yourself. Anything less would mean failure. Multax [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 07-02-2001).]

Dear Mr. Gcode Mr. Meyette can help you build your “dream” Intel system. Mr. Gcode, if you can afford it, I strongly suggest that you build an AMD 760MP based system. Please visit www.amdzone.com to gather the information you need to make an informed choice. An AMD 760MP motherboard costs about $500.00 and two 1.2GHz Palomino MP CPU’s will cost you $195.00 each. Mr. Gcode, DO NOT LET the users on this forum that have latched onto inferior technology (Intel) and continue to rabidly defend them, talk you into building a dual Intel P4 with RDRAM. However, Mr. Gcode, if you have a limited budget of $400.00 or less, follow this link, http://www.ubid.com/actn/opn/getpage.asp?AuctionId=5074046. You can purchase a RioWorks BX based motherboard at auction that supports IDE RAID and dual PIII‘s with a maximum FSB of 112 and a maximum clock multiplier of 8x. You can buy two 800Mhz PIII coppermine’s with a 100MHz FSB and overclock them to 896MHz for a total of 1792MHz. This board, in conjunction with a Gloria II video card should give you a budget-based Mastercam box that performs quite well. Multax [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 06-30-2001).]

Dear Forum Users I hope that Mr. Meyette, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Jay, and Mr. McKay will pool their resources and talents in a collaborative effort to produce and establish THE Mastercam benchmark. The test part for the Mill Benchmark should include all of the mill toolpath capabilities of Mastercam except five-axis toolpaths. For example, the completion of MasterBench level one would use and generate every Mastercam level one toolpath, level two would use and generate every Mastercam level two toolpath, level three would use and generate every Mastercam level three toolpath, including rotary fourth axis, both positioning and simultaneous. At the end of each level of MasterBench, the benchmark would automatically use MPFAN to post the toolpath and generate a benchmark in seconds? The C-axis part, tutorial number six, could serve as the Lathe Benchmark and follow the general outline of the Mill Benchmark. The completion of MasterBench entry would use every Mastercam lathe entry level toolpath. Level one would use every Mastercam lathe level one toolpath, including C-axis positioning. MasterBench should also include a video benchmark that tests rendering or shading as Mr. Meyette has mentioned, dynamic rotation, and zoom in and out. Consequently, a properly constructed MasterBench could give users an insight into a motherboard’s stability and performance, the CPU’s FPU unit, memory subsystem, quality of the AGP implementation, and hard drive performance. Finally, Mastercam users will know which CPU has the best FPU and calculates Mastercam toolpaths in the shortest time, whether DDR RAM actually performs as advertised, the best budget and cost no object video card, the fastest hard drive, which OS, Windows 98, 98SE, Millennium, NT 4.0, 2000 Professional has the best benchmark. I hope that CNC Software will write Mastercam V10 as a native, fully multithreaded 32 bit 2000 Professional Advanced Server application, or possibly as a 64 bit XP fully multithreaded application that can use two, four, or even eight CPU’s to give near instant toolpaths. UG, the creators of Parasolid, announced the multithreaded version of their modeling kernel on December 1, 1998. Remember, the Itanium, Clawhammer, and Sledgehammer will debut in 2002. Multax [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 06-22-2001).]

Dear Mr. Meyette Again Mr. Meyette, your linguistic efforts do not match you programing skills. The 1990 Edition of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary on page 301, column one, 2cowardly adj (15c) : being, resembling, or befitting a coward - cow-ard-li-ness n syn COWARDLY, PUSILLANIMOUS, CRAVEN, DASTARDLY, mean having or showing a lack of courage. COWARDLY implies a weak or ignoble lack of courage; . . . Mr. Gcode and Mr. Meyette, I enclosed MCAM’s video card description with a parenthesis and followed with a question mark because I suspect that they have mislabeled the card they intended to describe. Consequently, one can see what happens when people fail to use the English language with all of the precision that it offers. Toolpath Graphics Corner MCAM POWER PAGES Page 4 FEBRUARY 15, 2001 Before we can deal with performance, we must first get things working well. If you are experiencing graphics problems or seemingly poor performance, here’s the steps we recommend to resolve the problem. 1. Make sure you have properly identified your graphics card before proceeding. You will need to know the Maker, Model, RAM, PCI or AGP connector. 2. Make sure you know your operating system—Windows 98, ME, Windows 2000, Windows NT Service pack#) 3. Next, download the very latest video driver for your graphics card, even if you have done this in the last couple of months, these are changing rapidly. Try click on downloads, select Drivers & System Files, select Display & Video, then look for your display adaptor. If it’s onboard graphics, you should check with the computer manufacturer for drivers first. 4. Try slowing down the acceleration— Go Start, Settings, Control Panel, Display, Settings tab, Look for a troubleshooting or performance tab, then move the slider (see figure 1) to the left one click at a time, reboot if necessary, then try Mastercam each click. At some point, the problems may disappear. If there’s no improvement, move back to the original setting. 5. If turning down the acceleration or updating drivers doesn’t solve the problem, then download the original Microsoft OpenGL files, available at follow the instructions listed there. 6. Last, make sure you first try running the graphics at 1024x768 max, 16 Bit high color max. Most graphics adaptors work best with this setting. Some adaptors require the true color setting for proper OpenGL, but very few. BENCHMARK 51.25 SEC / Sony Computers have adopted the SIS graphics chipset on some new models. We are running Mastercam v8.1 on the Vaio Slimtop 800mhz PIII with the SIS 630 16mb chipset. Initially, the results were less than spectacular; Grainy wireframe, dogslow dynamic rotation, ghosting, smearing. Just recently, Sony posted new video drivers for the Vaio system / SIS 630 (on-board graphics). Once the new video driver was installed, the performance was excellent, especially Verify, True Solids. BENCHMARK 61.6 SEC / The ATI Rage Fury 32 MB AGP graphics card running under Windows 2000, appears to have all the right stuff for Mastercam. We are currently running this in house on a HP Pavillion PII 400, that has been transplanted with a TWAN 133mhz motherboard. Excellent shaded rotation, verification and backplot with shaded tools. The video driver that installs from CD has actual settings for OpenGL. This has not been tested with ME or 98, the question being of course, the video drivers. The price for this card is less than $150. BENCHMARK 83 Sec / On a Micron PII 450mhz with Number 9 Ticket to Ride, 32mb video RAM running under Windows NT4.0 SP4, True Solid verification would not function. We decided to load the old OpenGL files (available from our message board) in the mcam8 directory, then Verify, True Solid functioned. BENCHMARK: 50 SEC / Sony Computers Vaio Slimtop PIII700 with onboard ATI Rage Pro 4X AGP, 8mb video RAM running under Windows 2000. Using OpenGL v4 (1996) - See above. BENCHMARK: 27.7 SEC / Generic system - Athlon 900mhz processor, 128mb with ASUS Graphics adaptor, GeForce2 MX chipset, 32mb video RAM running under Windows 2000. Using OpenGL v4 (1996) - See above. If you have a system that performs particularly well (or poor) with Mastercam v8.1, especially shaded rotation and True Solids Verify (Tool On) we would appreciate an email, fax or phone call describing your experience, and any tricks to get it running fast. What we need to know: Benchmark time, Operating System (service pack), Exact Card or chipset model, amount of RAM on card and Driver version / Date. MCAM Graphics Benchmark for Mastercam v8.1 Using the sample file [rough pocket.mc8] located in the [samples/3D machining] folder, set Verify to the settings pictured on the right. Make sure that you have made no changes to the roughing operation in this file, and that the verify speed slider is set all the way to the right. Start Verify and your stopwatch. As soon as the verify is complete, stop and record time. You can experiment with some of the settings that have been mentioned below, and in previous newsletters. Also, check out the MMB (MCAM Message Board) for other tips and fixes. In certain newsletters, we will feature this section (Toolpath Graphics Corner) where we will provide you with the results of this benchmark on various systems for your information. Figure 1 Toolpath Graphics Corner (Continued from February) MCAM POWER PAGES Page 4 JUNE 1, 2001 In the February newsletter we introduced this section of the newsletter. We developed a simple benchmark for Mastercam that would allow us to compare video performance between systems. In order for this information to make sense, you need to be familiar with the first article. If you need a copy of the newsletter, it can be downloaded from our website at BENCHMARK 22 SEC (FASTEST BENCHMARK TO DATE) Dell 1.5ghz P4 Running Win 2000 with a Matrox Millennium GeForce II 64mb AGP graphics card. BENCHMARK 3:27 (SLOWEST BENCHMARK TO DATE) Generic P166 running Windows 95 with unknown generic vga card BENCHMARK 83 Sec / Micron PII 450mhz with Number 9Ticket to Ride, 32mb video RAM running under Windows NT4.0 SP4. BENCHMARK: 50 SEC / Sony Computers Vaio Slimtop PIII700 with onboard ATI Rage Pro X AGP, 8mb video RAM running under Windows 2000. BENCHMARK: 27.7 SEC / Generic system - Athlon 900mhz processor, 128mb with an ASUS Graphics adaptor, GeForce II MX chipset, 32mb video RAM running under Windows 2000. Mr. Meyette, I truly believe that you have greatly superior CNC programming and post modification and writing skills than I currently posses. I also believe that you have developed your machining knowledge and skills beyond my own. Fortunately, my mentors have taught me well, they always said, think objectively and never subscribe to the NIH (not invented here) attitude. Consequently, by any objective measure, I must humbly and respectfully request that you, Mr. Meyette, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Jay, and perhaps Mr. McKay can perform a great service for all Mastercam users and produce the benchmark that I suggested. The credit does not matter, the end result does, a trusted and universally accepted benchmark that gives all Mastercam users the ability to make an informed decision on their computer purchases. I hope that your next twenty posts chronicle your development efforts in conjunction with your above-named compatriots. Multax [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 06-20-2001).] [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 06-20-2001).] [This message has been edited by Multax (edited 06-20-2001).]