From: D Yuniskis on
Paul Carpenter wrote:
> In article <hg3mar$dcf$1(a)aioe.org>, not.going.to.be(a)seen.com says...
> ....
>> Motogorilla is notorious about being lax on specs on their
>> "newer" parts. Everything is "typ" -- nothing *guaranteed*
>> (I guess it gives them an out if something doesn't work as
>> *you* expect it would: "Well, there's no guaranteed max/min
>> on that parameter -- and we don't test it, either!")
>>
>> I can recall avoiding '05s for an issue like this (IRC,
>> something in the reset circuit that I wanted to exploit
>> "outside the box")
>
> NXP is just as bad, best I had was a USB hub chip that had
> loose specs for TTL and Schmitt inputs, but NOTHING told
> you which inputs were what type.

I think this is a consequence of more "designers" just
adopting reference designs or other "sample applications"
out of data sheets vs. designing from scratch. It must
be terribly frustrating when something *doesn't* work
and you can't even point to a published datum to justify
why you thought it *should* work!

But, then again, manufacturers haven't seemed to care about
those "inconveniences" for quite some time, now.

Or, as a friend explains: their "*contempt* for their customers"
From: D Yuniskis on
Peter wrote:
> Don - your old emails all bounced. Mine can be found at
> www.peter2000.co.uk :)

<frown> Yes, long story. Watch for incoming mail...
From: Paul Carpenter on
In article <hg67en$6dt$1(a)aioe.org>, ulf(a)a-t-m-e-l.com says...
> Jon Kirwan skrev:
....
> >> I am willing to buy small amount of 25, 50 or 100, but not 1000. If

> That is why you have distributors.
> Distributors which apply the same minimum order qty as the vendor
> has lost part of their reason to exist.

This is VERY common in my experience with MANY distributors. This is true
for all sorts of product lines from all sorts of manufacturers.

Even the likes of Farnell/RS/Digikey/Mouser who are supposed to be small
volume distributors. As much as possible is classed as 'special order'.

MANY distributors are just turning into Freight Forwarders.

--
Paul Carpenter | paul(a)pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
From: Brendan Gillatt on
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

linnix wrote:
> On the other hand, my complaint with Atmel is that they are not moving
> fast enough with AVR. They are wasting too much resources with AVR32
> and ARM. We have been waiting years for a part to fill a gap between
> too big too expensive and too small cheap enough. The announcements
> came months ago, but no sample available and minimum order of 1K and
> months of delivery. How do they expect us to design with AVR? We are
> currently looking for alternatives.

I beg to differ to some extent: the new AVR32 chips are like striking
gold for some of my projects. The peripherals are good but the new core
is terrific. Their claims to 100% software decoding MP3s at 25MHz are no
word of a lie.

Plus, a big 256K AVR32 uC costs just over �9. The alternative from ST and
NXP (ARM cores) with similar performance, memory and peripherals is
several � more.

Besides /linnix/ the AP7xxxx chips run Linux in case you are interested.

I do concede on the availability front, and it couldn't hurt if they
could squeeze those AVR32s in a package with less than 100 pins!

For the stuff I'm designing longevity isn't such an important feature.

For your gap bridging needs, (and this is a wild guess without any sortof
specifications) have you had a look at the Luminary (TI) Cortex M3 offerings?

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFLJu4OHEhZ5Ws5poERAtCWAJ9F1VQSACCECCG6xQ45oK3phI1j0QCfcpqs
AZkmDCDd+1kbJbA8SwIR0ZA=
=rmY4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: linnix on
On Dec 14, 6:01 pm, Brendan Gillatt
<brendanREMOVET...(a)brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> linnix wrote:
> > On the other hand, my complaint with Atmel is that they are not moving
> > fast enough with AVR.  They are wasting too much resources with AVR32
> > and ARM.  We have been waiting years for a part to fill a gap between
> > too big too expensive and too small cheap enough.  The announcements
> > came months ago, but no sample available and minimum order of 1K and
> > months of delivery.  How do they expect us to design with AVR?  We are
> > currently looking for alternatives.
>
> I beg to differ to some extent: the new AVR32 chips are like striking
> gold for some of my projects. The peripherals are good but the new core
> is terrific. Their claims to 100% software decoding MP3s at 25MHz are no
> word of a lie.

That's my point. AVR32 is draining Atmel, at the expenses of AVR8.

>
> Plus, a big 256K AVR32 uC costs just over £9. The alternative from ST and
> NXP (ARM cores) with similar performance, memory and peripherals is
> several £ more.

That's over 15 USD, vs. less than 2 USD for U2. Even the lowest AVR32
are 3 to 4 USD. I am sure the customer can eventually negotiate a
better production price for AVR8 vs. AVR32, despite the apparent price/
performance..

>
> Besides /linnix/ the AP7xxxx chips run Linux in case you are interested.

Not for this, we need very minimum horse power only.

>
> I do concede on the availability front, and it couldn't hurt if they
> could squeeze those AVR32s in a package with less than 100 pins!
>
> For the stuff I'm designing longevity isn't such an important feature.
>
> For your gap bridging needs, (and this is a wild guess without any sortof
> specifications) have you had a look at the Luminary (TI) Cortex M3 offerings?

Nothing cheap enough witth USB.
We need just USB with at least 30 I/Os.