8 bit microcontroller market
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Tiny Bootloader
Next: Link&Locate 86?
From: Jim Granville on 5 Sep 2006 17:25 Joerg wrote: > BTW, I am still designing with CD4000 logic despite the fact that some > sales people told me in the early 90's that this logic series in almost > dead. Then the mfgs ported it to small SMT packages. Now those sales > guys are a little more cautious with such bold "gut feeling" statements > or wishful thinking. > > They initially wanted me to switch to "modern" logic chips. Then I told > them "Yeah, if you can point out at least two other manufacturers as > sources and drop the price to less than 1.5 cents per inverter". plus it's not only price - we spec HEF40106 devices, where they are the best technical solution. Often you do not want the fastest gate on the planet, and some noise immnity and delay is a good thing :) -jg
From: Yuriy K. on 5 Sep 2006 19:47 Joerg wrote: >>>>> However, there is one thing that I regularly had to consider as a >>>>> manager or when designing uC into otherwise analog circuitry for my >>>>> clients: Availability of programmers. This is where (so far) the 8051 >>>>> has beaten all others hands down. >> >> What's the difference? CPU core type does not matter as soon as it is >> fast enough to handle the task. Programmer who can handle only 8051 >> core shall be fired for the incompetence. > > That's not how managers in the industry think here in California and > those are the folks who make most decisions. Poor managers. Micromanagement is a very, very counterproductive option. BTW, how many managers were polled to get these results? > It's simple: You have a > task at hand and you need someone who can instantly jump on it. Zero > learning curve. He or she should preferably be local. Also, it should be > an architecture where you can instantly find a local replacement should > that consultant not pan out for some reason. I found that the 8051 > architecture is very adequate for most jobs. You don't need a fancy > 16-bitter for a simple control function. Well, as long as the goal is to build a Christmas light sequencer, I tend to agree. But even in this case CPU type is not important, unless the goal is to waste resources by using assembly language... >> I feel pity for these people. Not much can be built out of only >> resistors, capacitors ans 2n3904s... > > A whole lot more than you think. I do this all the time and we have food > on the table :-) A lot of people have better food without ever heard such meaningless words as 2n3904, etc. :-P There is no multiple source processors now. Even 8051 derivatives usually have some distinctive features. > Thing is, the number of engineers who are able to design something > around a bunch of discretes or other jelly-bean parts is rapidly > declining. To the point where many fresh graduates are not even able to > understand my designs anymore. Ironically, there are at least two possible reason for that... > Beauty is of no importance in an industrial design. Important are only > these: > > a. Fulfills specs, but no more. > b. Cost > c. Cost > d. Cost Just don't forget, that what you get is what you pay for. WBR, Yuriy
From: Yuriy K. on 5 Sep 2006 19:50 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-[] > 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...
From: Boudewijn Dijkstra on 6 Sep 2006 10:56 Op Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:41:27 +0200 schreef Ulf Samuelsson <ulf(a)a-t-m-e-l.com>: >> Jim, the first thing I like to look at is the size of the ALU. Then, I >> try to look at >> the size of the internal register datapath. Easiest way for me to do >> this is look at >> instruction execution times. If it takes only one cycle to do a 16-bit >> ADD and they call >> it a 16-bit, I call it a 16-bit. >> >> But if 16-bit moves take twice as long as 8-bit and 16-bit arithmetic >> takes about twice >> as long as 8-bit, it's an 8-bit to me. Just hardcoding an instruction to >> do "big math" isn't enough for me. >> > The MC68000 is a 16 bit implementation of a 32 bit architecture and it > takes 4 clocks to do a 16 bit add. > Is this a 4 bit architecture? The MC68000 takes four clocks to do an 8-bit add as well, and can't do 4-bit adds in four clocks or less. In fact, it needs four clocks to do a NOP, and all instructions take a multiple of four plus sometimes a multiple of two. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Didi on 6 Sep 2006 12:31
> > 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... I believe what Joerg meant by that was the fact that newer software gets less and less efficient than old in PC world. I am just a spectator of the PC world (I live in my own environment...), but even to me it is obvious that todays versions of 10+ years old packages may have doubled or tripled functionality at best, while the resources they need have been increased by orders of magnitude (and the user wait time has mostly remained unchanged... watch windows go out for lunch with its HDD, for example). To the end user this may look like an improvement, but an engineers mind can find this only, well, repulsive is the right word, I guess. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ Yuriy K. wrote: > 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-[] > > > 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... |