8 bit microcontroller market
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Tiny Bootloader
Next: Link&Locate 86?
From: Ian Bell on 6 Sep 2006 16:17 Frank Bemelman wrote: > > How long ago did you design it? 20 years ago there was little > other choice than 8051. Completely wrong. In 1986 there were loads of other 4 and 8 bit microcontrollers to choose from - NEC, Motorola, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Panasonic to name but a few. Ian
From: Yuriy K. on 6 Sep 2006 23:02 John F wrote: >> Necessity to use assembler usually points to the inadequate >> processor selection. > > You can't mean what you are saying here. Yes, I can and I do. Assembler is needed in a very few, very special cases. > I even write ASM on high > speed DSPs to get the best out of the material. DSP is one of these special cases. And even for DSP assembler should not take a big percentage of the code. > If you write an > interrupt-routine in C it says that you don't care about timing at > all. That's it. I write all my interrupt routines in C. It means the proper processor selection and good task division between interrupt and > It shows your ignorance to hard realtime constraints. > Compiler- and optimisation-independent timing is _very_ important. That's what timers, compare/capture units and other good hardware stuff is used for. >>>> A lot of people have better food without ever heard such >>>> meaningless >>>> words as 2n3904, etc. :-P >>> So, you think a 2N3904 is meaningless? Interesting. Open some >>> gadgets >>> and look inside. My designs that contain a lot of such discretes >>> generate comfortable profit margins for my clients. >> :) These people never heard word transistor either. > > That's not true. I always give them a detailed introduction to my > designs. There are some people outside of embedded hardware design engineers circle, you know. -- WBR, Yuriy. "Resistance is futile"
From: Jim Granville on 6 Sep 2006 23:36 Yuriy K. wrote: > Frank Bemelman wrote: > >> How long ago did you design it? 20 years ago there was little >> other choice than 8051. > > > Well, there still was 8048... > >> It was already sort of a microcontroller, >> even though it needs external ram/rom. Ten years ago - still >> a valid choice, but the arena is getting smaller and smaller >> for the 8051. I agree it can still be a very valid choice today, >> for typically very less demanding tasks. > > > It would be hard to create architecture worse than x51 today. Limited > stack, single pointer, three different type of data memory, no thought > at all about high-level language, 12 clocks per cycle, etc. > By any rules it should be dead long ago... Of course, with a clean slate, and a huge amount of hindsight, and a shift of the target goal posts, with new 2006 processes and design tools, then it's no real surprise a different answer would result. You could say the same about almost any processor, the Pentium included. Just one tiny problem: the real world is not a clean slate, and there are huge amounts of IP and training invested. Include that, and the 80C51 has a long life ahead of it still. -jg
From: CBFalconer on 6 Sep 2006 19:12 Joerg wrote: > >>> Except for field failures or the occasional fatalities. Look at >>> electronics in automotive. I'd never buy a car with dozens of >>> controllers. >> >> Still driving old carb. engine around? 8-[] > > Mits Montero four-cylinder, stick shift. Simple, never breaks > down, good enough for me :-) > > BTW, my old carb-equipped Citroen from the college days got 50mpg > with regular unleaded. Now try that with a "modern" car. Oh, and > it needs to be able to haul an upright fridge because my Citroen > could and did that. Yes, and my 1977 Honda Civic got over 40 mpg (US gal), had plenty of pep, cruised at 70 mph, and could be parked anywhere. However, it died of rust. > >>> A lot of stuff actually does not get better but worse. PC >>> software is just one example. >> >> Very good example. I vote for today's software over any 10-years >> old. And definitely over any 25-years old software... > > Ok, I am of opposite opinion here. Simply based on speed and > number of crashes. If you have any old software on your system (I do) you will usually find they take up almost no room, run like a bat out of hell, and do the same job they were designed for. Here are some examples (11 of which are my own software): ne .com 32377 05-Jun-86 13:30:0 exe2bin .exe 3052 24-Jul-87 00:00:0 entab .com 4752 07-Dec-87 16:50:02 fdiff .com 2043 13-Apr-88 21:46:0 qsort .exe 23531 11-Jul-88 08:00:0 optasm .exe 71620 20-Jul-88 21:13:02 more .com 435 18-Oct-88 11:30:4 refrence.exe 21586 02-Nov-88 08:30:58 vsn .com 1082 06-Jan-89 12:00:0 stripeof.exe 8242 08-Jan-89 22:34:50 fdate .com 1059 22-Feb-89 16:59:4 detab .exe 10226 18-Mar-89 03:05:02 lfcrcrlf.exe 7362 18-Mar-89 16:09:1 addffs .exe 7890 05-Apr-89 12:43:0 validate.exe 19378 23-Apr-89 22:10:24 sd .com 16376 02-Jun-89 12:00:10 compare .exe 17890 07-Nov-89 08:20:1 For comparison with compare.exe, here is a modern version, encumbered by many features, that does almost the same job: diff .exe 175104 28-Mar-02 14:36:20 and it isn't even a GUI interface!! -- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
From: Didi on 7 Sep 2006 01:08
> I guess it's targeted at the luxury sector. S-Class, 7-Series etc. I would be less sure of that. They do offer the 5200 - which is flashless, but full of stuff at <$20. (400 MHz 603e, plenty of serial/CAn ports, MAC10/100, USB, DDR,PCI etc.). I don't expect this one to cost more. > Personally I don't like the idea of having to trust that the contents of > those 3MB are bug free while cruising down an autobahn at 120mph. At > least not for mission critical stuff in there. I might have similar feelings on that. All - _all_ of the code my DPS has on its disk is about 2 M. This includes kernel, filesystem, windows support system, device drivers, object definitions, system commands, utilities, assemblers, linker (it's 1 for all :), tcp/ip stack, my gamma spectrometry code (which is probably about 1/3 of all that), you name it - several hundred files located in several directories. But then, they only have C to support the PPC so they provide all that flash - which is a good thing itself, the code they intend to put into it may be not that good... Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ Joerg wrote: > Hello Jim, > > > > > For those who claim second source is not important, this news item, > > ( somewhat at the opposite end of the market, from the 8051 ! :), > > mentions a 3MBYTE monster PowerPC core from Freescale and states > > > > http://www10.edacafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?section=ICNews&articleid=301487 > > > > "In February 2006, ST Microelectronics and Freescale announced a > > collaboration agreement that outlines joint design of 32-bit automotive > > MCUs based on Power Architecture technology, including future 90-nm > > products with dual-source options available for these devices." > > > > Note also the comments about 5V operation..... > > > > Just read about it today. It was in the German edition of EE Times. For > those who can read German: > > http://eetimes.eu/germany/192501959;jsessionid=GHTVEE0QJRNJCQSNDLSCKHA > > > > Anyone seen a price on this device ? > > > > The last sentence "Über den Preis machte der Anbieter keine Angaben." > translates into "The vendor did not disclose pricing." :-( > > I guess it's targeted at the luxury sector. S-Class, 7-Series etc. > Personally I don't like the idea of having to trust that the contents of > those 3MB are bug free while cruising down an autobahn at 120mph. At > least not for mission critical stuff in there. > > -- > Regards, Joerg > > http://www.analogconsultants.com |