Re: [foxboro] Anybody Using IACC??

Thanks for taking the time Corey!  That is the kind of response I'm hoping
to receive with detailed pro's and con's.  Hopefully some MS only users will
also respond with their perspectives.

Tom VandeWater

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Corey R Clingo
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:41 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Anybody Using IACC??


The short answer is no, we are not embracing it.
The long answer includes several factors.  Invensys is not the only
control systems vendor doing it.  Honeywell, Emerson, Rockwell...they all
have Windows-based systems, at least at the console and application level
(the controllers generally continue to run a proprietary real-time OS).
They generally have redundancy of any critical Windows-based system
components (servers and gateways) at the application level (i.e., two
separate boxes both running the server software).  My guess as to the real
reasons for this are 1) relatively cheap, easy-to-use (lots of wizards)
programming tools provided by Microsoft; 2) relatively cheap, plentiful
programmers versed in the Windows environment (although the Windows APIs
tend to be complex, at least pre-.Net); 3) relatively cheap, plentiful
hardware available to run it on -- and since you no longer have to pay
5-digit sums for an OS license, the control system vendor can lower their
prices -- or charge more for their own software.  Note that none of these
reasons includes the word "customer".


As for security, Solaris has its share of patches as well.  You just don't
hear about them, since very few home PCs run Solaris, and Invensys, if
they give them to you at all, just quietly slips them in with each point
release.  However, the popularity of Windows, the Microsoft stance of
favoring features over security, and those aforementioned programming
tools make the Windows platform a much more enticing target for
cyber-malice.  And one of the touted "advantages" of using Windows in a
control console -- being able to install and run all your favorite
applications on it -- just exacerbates this problem.


So I envision a possible control platform migration to Windows (although
this is not a 100% certainty, as I'll discuss later).  I actually have one
AW70, to use as an OPC gateway, but it has less functionality than my
AW51s (see below).  And that's the problem: the Foxboro Windows software
appears to me to be mostly a crude port of their Unix offering.  Foxdraw
and IACC seem to be the only from-scratch, native Windows applications in
the "base" system (and IACC's "integration" was pretty spotty, last time I
looked).  In 2 or 3 or 5 years, when Foxboro gets the system rewritten and
debugged as native Windows apps, I'd consider it.  But not now, not during
the transition.


Several recent events have caused be to be less resigned to a Windows
future, however.  Tools like IBM's Eclipse and cross-platform languages
like Java and Python, and even C#/.Net (with the Mono project) have shown
me that you can have robust, functional development tools and languages on
multiple OSes.  The underlying platform is less and less relevant.
Further, these tools enhance security by making it difficult to use
dangerous programming practices.  The rise in popularity of Linux has
shown that people are willing to look at  Windows alternatives.  And the
traditional "workstation" vendors, like Sun and HP, have been forced to
lower their prices to compete with bargain-basement Intel hardware and
OSes.


One thing I'd like to see more is the embracing of open, standard,
OS-independent protocols by all the control system vendors.  I'd like an
Ethernet/IP driver for AWs so I could talk to A-B PLCs and other devices
directly without OPC software.  I'd like to see my smart transmitter and
fieldbus data exposed in an open, standard manner so I can use anyone's
CMMS or device configuration tool with my I/A DCS.  But I'll keep dreaming
on that one... ;-)


Oh, yes...and my experiences with my AW70?  Foxboro ships it, even at
version 7.1, with version 5.something of Exceed (current is version 9, I
think); I believe this to be the cause of my arrow-key and cursor
problems.  I've gotten no resolution for those issues, as I posted to this
list last week.  (If I can't fix these by tweaking Exceed, I plan to do an
unauthorized upgrade of Exceed to try and fix them myself).  I can't
configure the virtual CP in it from  another station out of the box, as I
can with ease on my '51s.  And don't do anything that loads the Windows
side too much, as the virtual CP process apparently doesn't have priority;
you will get a red Sys bar as it suffocates.  But the OPC I/O gate works
well, and performance with my A-B PLCs is two orders of magnitude or more
better than an Integrator 30.


I hope you get a lot of responses on this one.

Corey Clingo
BASF Corp.







tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
08/20/2004 10:16 AM
Please respond to foxboro

              To:  foxboro
              cc:
         Subject:       [foxboro] Anybody Using IACC??






Hi List,
We are trying to evaluate if Foxboro's movement toward Microsoft
Servers and applications are being embraced by the user community at
large,
or if they are mostly being purchased and installed at new sites with no
installed base of UNIX Servers/applications.  We have a lot of concerns
about the robustness and security of the Microsoft offerings.  The recent
warnings issued by both Foxboro and Wonderware concerning problems related
with installing Microsofts XP Service Pack 2 have only increased our
concerns for the future of IA on NT/XP/Server2003....

a.      "Wonderware recommends customers DO NOT install SP2 for Windows XP
until SP2 is fully supported by Wonderware. Some Wonderware FactorySuite
applications may stop working if this XP service pack is installed."

b.      "We have determined that a loss of I/A Series functionality can
occur after loading and applying Windows XP Service Pack 2. Additionally,
I/A Series software will not load correctly on a machine that has Windows
XP
Service Pack 2 applied to the machine prior to the installation of I/A
Series software. "

If an operating system has so many holes and security risks that it
requires continual updates via Service Pack releases, it may not be suited
for use in highly critical applications such as our DCS.  It wouldn't be
much of a concern to us if the Service Pack installations didn't cause
loss
of functionality of applications that worked before, but this is a classic
case of the tail wagging the dog.  Because of Microsoft's mechanism to
automatically install updates on Windows machines, the users could lose
access without even knowing why.  This now puts the onus on Wonderware,
Foxboro, and the user community to expend special efforts to keep
Microsoft
from shooting them in the foot.

We purchased two AW-XP's because Foxboro told us that the future of
all IA configuration efforts will be advanced by new applications that
will
run only on the MS platform.  The current Integrated Control Configurator
development will not progress, and any new functionality will only be
implemented in IACC.  FoxDraw and IACC have a special relationship that
also
moves the Display building and configuration toward "MS only"
functionality.
It is yet to be understood how WonderWare's "InTouch" HMI will be
incorporated into the mix but it is sure to be done in an MS environment
because the entire Archestra platform is entirely MS based.  This brings
me
to the question in the subject line: "Is anybody out there using IACC as a
replacement for the ICC?"

We used the ability of the XP-AW's to run ModbusTCP and OPC IOgates,
as cost justification to purchase the XP AW's.  Needless to say,
implementing them is something far short of seamless and running multiple
gates simultaneously on NT didn't mean that you could do it on XP.  Who
knew?  Apparently no one at Foxboro.  Although Foxboro keeps saying that
the
user community dictated the move to an MS environment, it is more likely
that they wanted to move in that direction due to a large installed base
of
existing applications coupled with more MS application programmer
availability.  Corporate managers that have more MS experience because
they
use it on their desktop were also enthusiastic, so the move to MS appeared
to make sense.  However, many of the folks charged with maintaining and
securing these critical systems have been less than enthusiastic about the
move to MS.
It is hard to tell if they know the UNIX based systems and are just
resistant to change or if the MS systems really have all of the problems
that they are pointing out but nobody else is listening.  I am soliciting
feedback from all users about thier experiences with Foxboro's MS
offerings.
Please try to make objective comments and keep the passion from rising to
the top. It would be great if we received input from MS Only Foxboro users
as well as UNIX to MS transition experiences.
We have already captured many of our experiences in a Word document
that I will be glad to email to those that request it, (off-list of
course),
but I am interested in getting unique feedback that isn't influenced by
any
of our experiences to begin with.  Thanks for anything you can contribute
to
this thread!

Let the Games Begin,

Tom VandeWater
Control Systems Developer/Analyst
Dow Corning Corp.
Carrollton, KY   USA


_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html

foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave







_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html

foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: