Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: jasen on 25 Mar 2007 07:34 On 2007-03-24, Lionel <usenet(a)imagenoir.com> wrote: > On 24 Mar 2007 09:07:41 GMT, jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >>On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> jasen wrote: >>>> It's an 8-bit microcontroller it doesn't need that extra stuff ... >>> >>> Speak for yourself. Since when is A/D resolution not important for an 8 >>> bitter? >> >>how often is 10 bits too few ? > > Quite often. Photography & audio work, just for two popular examples. you want to do serious audio *1 or imaging *2 on a 20MIPS 8-bitter ? *1 for toys, or telephony, 8 bits are enough *2 I can't see 10 bits needed for an exposure meter, at low speeds switched gain is an option. -- Bye. Jasen
From: krw on 25 Mar 2007 17:38 In article <ss7d03tpgkqing3bcolbijt79a9sml3a2h(a)4ax.com>, usenet(a)imagenoir.com says... > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:42:33 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >In article <9fac0393nnc4fvfdn4adjaqn1vbni30aa9(a)4ax.com>, > >usenet(a)imagenoir.com says... > >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:32:44 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <46059f7e$0$3748$ba620dc5(a)text.nova.planet.nl>, > >> >burrynulnulfour(a)ppllaanneett.nnlll says... > >> >> jasen wrote: > >> >> > On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> >> jasen wrote: > >> >> >>> On 2007-03-16, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> TT_Man wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> As you said, PIC is king and it is for a reason, they work. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Only if you can get to grips with the appalling op code set..... OK > >> >> >>>>> if you can program in C , I suppose.I can't/won't > >> >> >>>> I only do assembler on the PIC too. What's wrong with the op-code > >> >> >>>> set? It's RISC, > >> >> >>> no it's not, it has too few registers to qualify. > >> >> >> By whose definition? > >> >> > > >> >> > Pretty much everyones (with the exception of the PIC fans). > >> >> > > >> >> > google "what is risc" sometime. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> What do you not understand about > >> >> "Reduced Instruction Set Computer"? > >> > > >> >The term is "Reduce Instruction Set Complexity". > >> > >> No, it isn't: > >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC> > >> > >> > >> >> (A computer with a reduced instruction set???) > >> > > >> >No, it's a computer with a set of less complex instructions. The set > >> >can still be quite large and complex (e.g. PowerPC). > >> > > >> >> A computer with about 30 instructions can be called > >> >> a risc computer,as compared to the x86 group with about 500. > >> > > >> >Not necessarily. If it has memory reference arithmetic instructions > >> >(e.g. ADD R,<memory>) it is NOT a RISC processor. > >> > > >> >> Now if you want to claim that name for something else, > >> >> you better explain that, because I think a lot of people > >> >> dont agree with you. > >> > > >> >Anyone with a passing familiarity with computer architecture will. > >> > >> I have more than a "passing familiarity" with computer architecture > >> (nearly 30 years, so far), & I don't agree with you. > >> > >Funny, the people who invented the term (and the first example > >hardware) do. > > You think? > Feel free to post authoritative reference. First, why don't you tell me what you so object to, since you were the person I responded to (and have said nothing more than "you're wrong). -- Keith
From: krw on 25 Mar 2007 19:44
In article <mkud03pg8c2lu5ljpe0oerphik9vcrfupd(a)4ax.com>, usenet(a)imagenoir.com says... > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:38:22 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >In article <ss7d03tpgkqing3bcolbijt79a9sml3a2h(a)4ax.com>, > >usenet(a)imagenoir.com says... > >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:42:33 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <9fac0393nnc4fvfdn4adjaqn1vbni30aa9(a)4ax.com>, > >> >usenet(a)imagenoir.com says... > >> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:32:44 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <46059f7e$0$3748$ba620dc5(a)text.nova.planet.nl>, > >> >> >burrynulnulfour(a)ppllaanneett.nnlll says... > >> >> >> jasen wrote: > >> >> >> > On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> jasen wrote: > >> >> >> >>> On 2007-03-16, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> TT_Man wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>> As you said, PIC is king and it is for a reason, they work. > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> Only if you can get to grips with the appalling op code set..... OK > >> >> >> >>>>> if you can program in C , I suppose.I can't/won't > >> >> >> >>>> I only do assembler on the PIC too. What's wrong with the op-code > >> >> >> >>>> set? It's RISC, > >> >> >> >>> no it's not, it has too few registers to qualify. > >> >> >> >> By whose definition? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Pretty much everyones (with the exception of the PIC fans). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > google "what is risc" sometime. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> What do you not understand about > >> >> >> "Reduced Instruction Set Computer"? > >> >> > > >> >> >The term is "Reduce Instruction Set Complexity". > >> >> > >> >> No, it isn't: > >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> (A computer with a reduced instruction set???) > >> >> > > >> >> >No, it's a computer with a set of less complex instructions. The set > >> >> >can still be quite large and complex (e.g. PowerPC). > >> >> > > >> >> >> A computer with about 30 instructions can be called > >> >> >> a risc computer,as compared to the x86 group with about 500. > >> >> > > >> >> >Not necessarily. If it has memory reference arithmetic instructions > >> >> >(e.g. ADD R,<memory>) it is NOT a RISC processor. > >> >> > > >> >> >> Now if you want to claim that name for something else, > >> >> >> you better explain that, because I think a lot of people > >> >> >> dont agree with you. > >> >> > > >> >> >Anyone with a passing familiarity with computer architecture will. > >> >> > >> >> I have more than a "passing familiarity" with computer architecture > >> >> (nearly 30 years, so far), & I don't agree with you. > >> >> > >> >Funny, the people who invented the term (and the first example > >> >hardware) do. > >> > >> You think? > >> Feel free to post authoritative reference. > > > >First, why don't you tell me what you so object to, since you were > >the person I responded to (and have said nothing more than "you're > >wrong). > > If you'd actually read the whole post, you would've noticed that I've > already posted a link to one reference. You can start there. > Once you're done, you can check: > <http://www.google.com/search?&q=define:RISC&oi=glossary_definition> > Be sure to let us all know if you manage to find a reference that > agrees with your definition of 'RISC' as meaning: "Reduce Instruction > Set Complexity", raher than "Reduced Instruction Set Computer". How about Carnegie Mellon University School of COmputer Science? (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mprice/Relationship%20Strategies.txt) "The most famous approach to these problems is called RISC, short for Reduced Instruction Set Complexity. Or, University of Iowa Department of Computer Science http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/assem/summer97/notes/16.html "As a result, processors designed according to the RISC (reduced instruction set complexity) philosophy..."' Berkley http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/publications/papers/93/jbuckThesis/t hesis.pdf "A RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Complexity) processor, as used in most workstations today..." Sun Microsystems: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5784588.html "Many architectures, notably reduced instruction set complexity (RISC) architectures such as the Scalable Processor Architecture (SPARC.TM.)..." MIT Supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers=3Fkuszmaul.ps "It has been widely argued that one cannot afford to put any new =3Facademic=3F mechanisms into state-of-the-art RISC microprocessors because of the billion-dollar investment that is put into such microprocessors. That billion-dollar investment, however, is indicative of the fact that the =3FReduced Instruction Set Complexity=3F designs have become very complex indeed." -- Keith > > |