<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.75">
<TITLE>RE: RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Neil,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Some thoughts on your questions</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>From reading the AB emails, it sounds like some of our future
directions should</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>be:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>1. Work towards installing AB PLCs with an Ethernet
interface.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>2. Use the Foxboro Micro I/A or an AW to provide desired
interfaces to Foxboro</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>systems. We do not need PLC redundancy.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>1. The world is definitely
gone Ethernet. It is hard to believe that any control/automation equipment that
be installed in 2000 would not provide an Ethernet port as a physical
connection.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>2. The AW-I's (51 or 70)
now and Micro I/A as part of a late release to 6.2.1 are Foxboro products that provide
Ethernet connectivity to AB PLCs. I am not a fan of Micro I/A solution. It
is a Foxboro proprietary interface to AB. The AW-I's are products that use 100%
unadulterated Interchange or RSLinx from Rockwell. Yes, Foxboro has still
developed the ECB application to talk to the PLCs, but the framework of that
application and the underlying communications is provided by the AB software that is
used. You sound like you have quite a mix of AB products to deal with. You
will probably have to entertain using Ethernet integration devices such as a Pyramid
Integrator (PI) (old) or a Control Logix gateway (new) to communicate to your DH+
based PLC's and the DH485 based SLC's. I don't believe (I haven't seen it
advertised) that the Micro I/A solution supports communication throug!
h a PI since Foxboro ported just the low level portions of Interchange to VRTX.
I know it won't support communication to Control Logix since a different protocol
stack is required. (EPIC) These are features that the AW-I's do provide. I
can't stress it more, however, it a station is performing 'control' (and I consider
the communication back and forth to PLCs to be control), keep this functionality
isolated.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>1. What is the best way to provide process operators and
engineers a view of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>what is happening in the PLC in an easy to understand manner with
minimal</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>upkeep.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Allow the PLC to do what is
best at, discrete control, and allow the DCS to do what it is best at, analog
control. Make sure this division/sharing of control is understood by your
process operators and maintenance technicians.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>2. We would like to implement some software that makes Allen
Bradley PLC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>programming as easy as possible and also that provides logic
documentation that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is very easy for non relay logic experts to follow. Any
suggestions?</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Keep a consistent bit
packing scheme for all your discrete devices, e.g. motors, valves between I/A and the
PLC. We use a MCIN (2 words, 32 bits) for each device as inputs from the PLC and
an MCOUT (1 word, 16 bits) as outputs to the PLC.</FONT></P>
<P>
<FONT SIZE=2>MCIN
MCOUT</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>1st bit A/M status
A/M command</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>2nd bit Status 1 (Hold contact 1)
Start/Open command</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>3rd bit Status 2 (Hold 2 on 2 pos.
device) Stop/Close command</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>4th bit General Fault
Fwd/Rev command</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>...
...
....</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The inputs from the PLC are packed in one file (e.g. N110) and the
outputs to the PLC in another (e.g. N120) Assign the starting word of for each
device to be the same in both the input and output files. Inputs from valve
XV22007 begins at word 20 in N110 and outputs to the valve begin at word 20.
Yes, 1 output word would go unused, but the consistent device addressing is more
important. Use standard overlays for the devices illustrating your standard data
pack scheme so the majority of the PLC troubleshooting can be done right from the I/A
screen. Make sure the address scheme documents itself within the
overlay.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>3. The purpose of most of our PLCs is for external shutdowns
(SIS). Will</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Control Logix provide any real benefit? Is Control Logix
considered to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>robust enough for SIS, or should it be used in conjunction with the
PLCs?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The Control Logix platform is Rockwell's new PLC product that
integrates sequential/discrete, motion, and process control (with the Process Logix
module) on the same backplane. They certainly wouldn't claim that is any less
robust than a PLC5. A couple years ago when it was first introduced, however, AB
was pretty good at saying that it wasn't ready to move the PLC5 aside just yet.
Like anything else, it is the programming tools such as RSLogix 5000 that are taking a
little longer to mature.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>4. If we network our PLCs together in some manner, will it
keep us from also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>using Micro I/A or an AW to somehow interface designated PLCs to
designated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Foxboro systems?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Create dedicated "control LAN segments" to handle the
communications between Foxboro and your PLCs. A huge amount of bandwidth is not
required, but remember you are expected to provide near real-time response so keeping
these segments as lightly loaded as possible and isolated from other network garbage
(X protocol, print jobs, ftp's, etc..) is important. Join these segments to your
corporate network to do network device management (hubs, switches) and create a data
path if you are performing remote programming or PLC backups (MDT Mass).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>5. Besides the purchase of the AW, what all do we need to
purchase to use an AW</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>for the interface? Does it matter whether we use a Unix or NT
AW?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The AW-I's would require Interchange for Unix or RSLinx for NT.
At this point, there is no functional difference between the AW51I and the AW70I in
regard to the AB capabilities. Stay with what you are comfortable with.
Either is fine for now. We are staying with the 51's since that is consistent
with our install base. Since Rockwell is so NT dominant, the AW70 may give you
more future growth potential in regard to Control Logix, but it would be up to Foxboro
exploit this capability through new ECB's and block types.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hope this begins to address your questions.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>
</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:35 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: John Metsker; 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re:RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thank you for taking the time to provide the information concerning
Allen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Bradley PLCs. I thought it was very informative.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>As of last week, my group will start to take on our facility's AB
PLC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>responsibilities in addition to our current Foxboro I/A
support. I know little</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>about the Allen Bradley product so I have a steep learning curve
ahead of me. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>My goals are to some how network the PLCs together for information
transfer and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>remote support purposes, and to implement some software that makes
the PLC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>programming much easier (than the relay logic look) to implement and
documents</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the logic for non-experts to easily follow. I would appreciate
any tips that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>you and others can provide to me.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I do not even know what Allen Bradley product we have yet, but I think
some of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>them are SLC150, SLC5/04, PLC5/11, PLC5/20, and a Panel View (??)
station. The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLCs are scattered around the facility on process equipment that is
controlled</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>various independent Foxboro systems and few, if any of them, are
currently</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>networked together. We will want some of the Foxboro systems to
somehow get</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>information from PLCs that are installed in their area, but we also
want to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>able to access all of the PLCs from common designated locations (say
designated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Office PCs with the correct security). One of the reasons to
link the PLCs to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the Foxboro systems will be to provide PLC trip alarms, historization
of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>contact states in PI, and a better means for the process operators
and engineers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to somehow view the states of the PLC logic.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>From reading the AB emails, it sounds like some of our future
directions should</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>be:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1. Work towards installing AB PLCs with an ethernet
interface.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2. Use the Foxboro Micro I/A or an AW to provide desired
interfaces to Foxboro</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>systems. We do not need PLC redundancy.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Some of my questions are:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1. What is the best way to provide process operators and
engineers a view of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>what is happening in the PLC in an easy to understand manner with
minimal</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>upkeep.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2. We would like to implement some software that makes Allen
Bradley PLC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>programming as easy as possible and also that provides logic
documentation that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is very easy for non relay logic experts to follow. Any
suggestions?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>3. The purpose of most of our PLCs is for external shutdowns
(SIS). Will</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Control Logix provide any real benefit? Is Control Logix
considered to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>robust enough for SIS, or should it be used in conjunction with the
PLCs?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>4. If we network our PLCs together in some manner, will it keep
us from also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>using Micro I/A or an AW to somehow interface designated PLCs to
designated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Foxboro systems?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>5. Besides the purchase of the AW, what all do we need to
purchase to use an AW</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>for the interface? Does it matter whether we use a Unix or NT
AW?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Regards,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Neil Martin</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Huntsman Petrochemical</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>____________________Reply Separator____________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Author: John Metsker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Date: 05/08/2000 1:05 PM</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sorry for being late to the mix and continuing to drag out this
issue. This</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>discussion should be linked to the e-mail flurry about AB Control
Logix and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet connectivity from a month or so ago. (I would assume
that your AB</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>connectivity strategies need to include support for the new AB
product</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>directions.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>At General Mills, we are using AW51 Integrators to provide AB
gateway</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>functionality. Yes, the Foxboro software bundling says that it
is an AW and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>it can act as an all in one machine, but they are being deployed
as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"dedicated" Integrators. (Basic premise of
distributed control; keep</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"control" separate from everything else. We may be a
food company, but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>we're not stupid.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>How come? Seems like overkill doesn't it.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>AB Interchange from Rockwell Software and Ethernet connectivity.
(The AW 70</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Integrator cousin uses RSLinx.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Why would anybody want AB connectivity that doesn't utilize the
standard</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>communication libraries that are developed and tested by Rockwell
software?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Every other major software vendor (Wonderware, Intelluion, MDT, SAP,
etc..)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that communicates with AB equipment develops applications that
utilize</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>RSLinx or Interchange. Why should Foxboro be different?
Foxboro is no</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>great lover of PLCs and Allen Bradley/Rockwell in particular.
Their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>products should have a headstart and take advantage of the
connectivity that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is provided by Rockwell themselves.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Why not any of the other AB connectivity products from Foxboro?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>ABGW or the ABGW30? The serial interfaces are too much of a
bottle neck.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The food industry is largely a discrete industry, we need to
communicate a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>lot of data at Ethernet bandwidth to/from the PLCs. The ABGW
and ABGW30</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>hardly allows a lot of PLC words to be communicated at high
speed. (Don't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>have redundant PLCs, don't need a redundant PLC interface.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>AB Station? The 1 to 1 coupling of AB stations to PLCs tends to
promote use</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of "data concentrators" that add complexity to PLC
troubleshooting. The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>sideport on the PLC provides about 1/2 the throughput that the
integrated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet port on PLC5E. (Ask to your knowledgeable AB rep to
compare</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet performance on an integrated PLC5E to an Ethernet
sidecar.) The AB</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>coprocessor is has a Motorola 68030 chip in it. That is it for
that product</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from AB. They assume everybody utilizing host computers with
RSLinx or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Interchange to accomplish the jobs once handled by the co-pro
module.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>How 'bout Micro I/A with AB Ethernet? The product is now going
to be a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>'late release' item with V6.2.1. Foxboro developed this product
by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>licensing source code from Rockwell and porting the low-level parts
of it to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the VRTX O.S. that runs in Micro I/A. It is now a Foxboro
proprietary</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>product. Also, be aware that Control Logix uses a different
network</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>protocol stack than PLC5s. Foxboro's VRTX port of Interchange
was prior to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>a version that supported Control Logix. Foxboro is going to
have to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>completely start over with this product in order to work with
CL. (The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>forthcoming Micro I/A AB Ethernet interface for PLC5/SLC500 has now
been in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the works for over 3 years.)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>AW51 Integrator? It is able to support Control Logix with
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>installation/configuration of the proper, underlying version of
Interchange</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(V6.2) It provides a 1 to many Ethernet interface to
PLCs. Sure it has</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>draw backs, like a hard drive and not being redundant. The
Ethernet</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>connectivity hopefully allows the box to sit in as decent an
environment as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>possible and as the prevailing chat on the email list would indicate,
it is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>not the stability of the hardware, but the stability of the software
that is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>afflicting the Foxboro User community. Redundant hardware can't
help there,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>but deploying the machine as simply an "Integrator 51" and
reducing the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>functionality of it improves it's stability greatly.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Oh yea, the price. Well, let me be the first one to tell you
that the price</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of cereal will be going up. Foxboro marketing needs to be
involved. A full</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>AW station license should not be charged if a 51 series machine if is
going</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to be utilized as an "Integrator 51". A Gateway
software bundle for the 51</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>was in the works as part of V6.2, but that was dropped like so many
other</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>things have been. The hardware part of it will forever perplex
me. Why can</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Foxboro develop/manufacture there own proprietary DIN rail computer
and sell</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>it at a somewhat desirable price, but they have to sell a Sun box at
double</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>or more of the street price.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Anyway sorry for being long winded. I hope this provides some
different</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>perspective on Foxboro/AB integration strategies. Your feedback
is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>appreciated.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John Metsker</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>General Mills, Inc </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Johnson,Alex [<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:17 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Foxboro DCS Mail List</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Re: PSS </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Check with your account rep or, you can get if from
www.csc.foxboro.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><<A HREF="http://www.csc.foxboro.com";
TARGET="_blank">http://www.csc.foxboro.com</A>> . I just checked and if you search
for "PSS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>21H-6C6 B4" on the CSC page it will take you to a list and this
document was</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the second one on the list.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Re: Redundancy</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The Micro I/A solution is not redundant that I am aware of, but you
can</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>always go point to point just like with the DI30 and have only one
PLC per</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Micro I/A.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Regards,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Alex Johnson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The Foxboro Company</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>10707 Haddington</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Houston, TX 77043</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>713.722.2859 (v)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>713.722.2700 (sb)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>713.932.0222 (f)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> -----Original
Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> From: Stan
Brown [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Sent:
Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:40 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>
Subject: Re: Integrator 30's vs. AB
Stations</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> On Wed May 3 17:20:05
2000 Johnson,Alex wrote...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> >To learn about Micro
I/A check out the following PSSs or contact</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>your</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> >Account Rep. I really
think that Micro I/A is a good way to go for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> >integrating the
devices that it supports.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> >PSS 21H-6C6
B4: Micro-I/A Allen-Bradley PLC5/E Remote
I/O</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Interface</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> ></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT
SIZE=2>
Alex, I am having a hard time finding this PSS. Have you got</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>a link, or</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>
something for it?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT
SIZE=2>
And a question, if we were to go with the Micro-IA PLC -></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>
solution what redunandcny could we incorporate?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Stan
Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>843-745-3154</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Charleston SC.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Windows 98: n.</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>
useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>extensions and</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>
a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>system</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>2-bit </FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>
company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> -</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> (c) 2000 Stan Brown.
Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>prohibited.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML></x-html>
