Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #24428 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-28 18:55 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-07-31 22:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:55 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 11:24 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 11:45 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-06-29 12:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-06-29 12:59 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-29 17:13 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:32 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-06-29 16:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:06 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:28 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:11 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 23:44 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-01 20:17 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:42 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-03 00:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:08 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-03 08:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-01 13:33 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:32 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-01 14:49 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:52 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:54 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 22:14 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:18 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-07-01 18:48 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:04 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:07 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:17 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:34 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-06-29 14:45 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-06-29 12:24 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:09 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:19 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:48 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:49 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-18 17:02 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-18 20:29 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-07-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-19 20:23 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-19 14:27 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:46 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:10 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-25 20:11 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-22 23:01 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:15 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-07-25 23:54 +0100
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-25 23:18 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:44 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-16 17:58 +0100
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 17:28 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:43 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-26 20:12 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 21:30 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-07-27 07:25 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:53 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-28 01:51 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 02:50 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 03:27 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 12:58 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-28 00:03 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> - 2016-07-28 10:19 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-29 14:52 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:19 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:03 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 17:11 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:54 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 09:45 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 22:17 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 22:28 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-08-02 23:14 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 18:05 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip kristoff <kristoff@skypro.be> - 2016-07-30 18:15 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 12:29 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 15:04 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2016-07-28 14:07 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-28 20:10 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:08 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:49 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 00:30 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-28 20:13 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:23 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:06 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 13:55 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 09:12 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:22 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 10:26 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:38 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 10:49 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:56 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 19:21 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 02:47 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-07-31 18:54 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 20:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 03:42 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 21:05 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 04:38 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-07-31 22:39 -0400
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | kristoff <kristoff@skypro.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 18:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnijrc$55e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24756 |
Paul, On 29-07-16 23:52, Paul Rubin wrote: > Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >> Take a STM32 Nucleo 32 and you can use it as PDIP with USB port for >> debugging, communication and file upload... > > Thanks, there's lots of those small boards but I didn't know about that > particular one, so it's nice to learn of it. However, it's not really > in the same class as an AVR which is in a single small package, DIP8 in > the case of ATTiny85, also available in hand solderable SMT packages, > and costs $1-$2 instead of $10+. Only NXP makes cortex-M MCUs in DIP packate: the LPC1114 and the LPC810. The latter is a DIP8 package like the ATtiny-series. But, if you are looking for something breadboard friendly, take a look at the maple mini (see here for the original product: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/11280) You can buy clones from then from the wellknown Chinese webshops for a couple of euros / dollars, and it is actually a cortex M3 running at 72 Mhz, so quite powerfull. Just search for "maple mini clone" on your favorite web search-engine. Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877fc28s7d.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24759 |
kristoff <kristoff@skypro.be> writes: > Only NXP makes cortex-M MCUs in DIP packate: the LPC1114 and the > LPC810. The latter is a DIP8 package like the ATtiny-series. Yes I know about those but they're not really comparable. > maple mini... You can buy clones from then from the wellknown Chinese > webshops for a couple of euros / dollars, That's interesting and worth keeping in mind. I'd seen the maple mini before but didn't know about these clones. > and it is actually a cortex M3 running at 72 Mhz, so quite > powerfull. In reality the AVR is more than powerful enough for most of the things they are used for: monitor a few pushbuttons, turn a light on and off, etc. High computational power has its uses but I'm also interested in micropower devices where the cpu runs at a few khz, just enough to run an RTC and a few gpio inputs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 12:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nncmqi$p8a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24744 |
On 28/07/16 09:03, Paul Rubin wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> There are a lot of choices. ARM Mx, PICxx. PICxx has many of the same >> single-source problems as AVR, but I've never caught them in the same >> "new revs are different" trap as with AVR. > > The smaller PICs seem horrible to program. AVR and ARM at least have > decent gcc-based tool chains. This is key, as far as I am concerned. When choosing a microcontroller for a job, having a good gcc port which is supported by the manufacturer is high up on my list of deciding factors. PICs have good peripherals and are very robust microcontrollers - but you have to use painful development tools and think in PIC-style C rather than writing normal C code. (The same applies to 8051, and other such C-unfriendly cores.) The AVR has a few quirks regarding C compatibility and programming (separate address spaces for flash, and poor pointer support) - it is a sort of middle-ground between unpleasant processors and nice ones. It is a nice cpu for assembly programming, though it's a long time since I have done much of that. The ARM is great for programming. It is a nice, clean 32-bit C friendly architecture. It is hard to see what could be better in this regard. (There are plenty of other equally good ISA's, such as PPC, 68K, MIPS, etc.) > As mentioned, I don't know of ARM parts > directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for > breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). PDIP packages are hardly the popular ones. For prototyping with AVRs, I expect most people use ready-made boards so that the packaging doesn't matter. It must be well over a decade since I have seen any use of breadboards for prototyping or development. There are few microcontrollers of any sort these days that will drive 5V signals, but certainly the Freescale/NXP Kinetis (Cortex M0+/M4) series are mostly 5V tolerant and some drive 5V outputs. > ARMs also seem more > complex to program than AVR (e.g. in terms of the stuff required on > startup) but maybe that's my imagination. It is a bit of a generalisation, but it is roughly correct. It is an inevitable consequence of greater flexibility of peripherals and core modules. An AVR runs at a given clock speed - determined by an external crystal or internal oscillator and a few "fuse bits". An ARM microcontroller might have a couple of internal oscillators, a low-power 32 kHz crystal, and a high speed crystal. Internally, it will perhaps start in one mode but software will switch it to another, maybe even with dynamic changes while running. Different parts of it will run at different speeds. There is simply more to configure - and that's just for the clocks. > > I was a fan of the TI MSP430 line for a while, since it has a nicer cpu > architecture and some unique features, but again the available parts > don't have the configuration and packaging options that the AVRs do. The msp430 cpu is very nice - it's the cleanest 16-bit C device I have used. (The 20-bit extensions are horrible, however.) > Plus, I think recent ARMs have surpassed the 430's in power efficiency > despite being 32 bits wide instead of 16. TI itself seems to be moving > away from the 430 line towards the Cortex M4. > It's always a challenge to define power efficiency - it can mean so many things. One device might have lower leakage power in standby mode, another might have lower energy required for a given calculation. In general, simpler devices like the msp430 or AVR are likely to have lower static power, but a Cortex M0+ will take much less power for processing tasks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 15:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nncvtp$nku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24744 |
Il 28/07/2016 09:03, Paul Rubin ha scritto: > I don't know of ARM parts > directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for > breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). Regarding 5V tolerant I/O, take a look at ARM Cortex-M0+ SAM C2x from Atmel. They can be supplied directly with 5V. Regarding ARM in DIP packages, I think there is something in NXP LPC MCUs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnd3jn$udk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24744 |
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:03:28 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: > The smaller PICs seem horrible to program. AVR and ARM at least have > decent gcc-based tool chains. As mentioned, I don't know of ARM parts > directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for > breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). ARMs also seem more > complex to program than AVR (e.g. in terms of the stuff required on > startup) but maybe that's my imagination. We used PIC16s heavily when they were the only 16- or 20-MHz processors we could get for, like, a buck. They were pretty cute to program in assembler, and we could do the things we needed to do well within a couple of hundred instructions so assembler was no problem. With the proper setup, between the FSR and the bank-select bits, the processor could zip around in (what in C would be) an array of structs with no trouble at all. C compilers seem to have trouble keeping such close tabs on what will be in the bank-select bits come runtime. For my own stuff, I usually start with AVR because of general availability and the AVRDudes' toolchain. I still say, considering a project that I'm contemplating moving to ARM, that I did the whole project with about the same effort it will take to set up the ARM clocks. I can re-use those results later, but still ... Mel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 20:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uk7lpbh756sargcu063sg0imcq78okpap4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24739 |
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:04:51 -0700, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >krw@attt.bizz writes: >> They know they have a lot of "trapped" AVR customers. Again, I can't >> imagine anyone choosing it today, unless they had a lot of investment >> (or inertia) they were protecting. > >I'm just a software geek but the AVR looks pretty versatile to me and I >know that lots of hardware folks like it. Yeah I suppose there's >inertia. Still don't know what you're advising instead. You mentioned >the Cortex M7 but that's at a completely different level of cost and >complexity. The M0 is closer, but I don't know of any M0 (or other ARM) >parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's. The M4/M7 are inline with the price of the AVRs. The M0 is more in the PIC class. ...even lower end PICs. Big differences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 10:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnaf8k$nvs$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24724 |
On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>> >>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>> >>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>> their head examined. >> >> Can you explain that? > > Sure. There are better alternatives. "Better" in what way? > New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR > development. Go figure. I guess they know a winner when they see it. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 19:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j0iipbdctjul72p1abrtl1agkhdorao454@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24731 |
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>> >>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>> >>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>> their head examined. >>> >>> Can you explain that? >> >> Sure. There are better alternatives. > >"Better" in what way? Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and software). >> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >> development. Go figure. > >I guess they know a winner when they see it. I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 00:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnc1p3$sde$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24737 |
On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>> >>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>> their head examined. >>>> >>>> Can you explain that? >>> >>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >> >> "Better" in what way? > > Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and > software). Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 bit devices and even 16 bit devices. Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051? >>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>> development. Go figure. >> >> I guess they know a winner when they see it. > > I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining. > -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 20:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gq7lpbtv3is6g8tqb2u3f49gldqr4voa8j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24740 |
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:30:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>>> their head examined. >>>>> >>>>> Can you explain that? >>>> >>>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >>> >>> "Better" in what way? >> >> Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and >> software). > >Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast >enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 >bit devices and even 16 bit devices. Bullshit. Performance is very important. Cost is equally important. Cost/performance is king. > >Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. > >Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051? Good grief. ARM >>>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>>> development. Go figure. >>> >>> I guess they know a winner when they see it. >> >> I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining. >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 02:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnhh53$rg0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24755 |
On 7/28/2016 8:13 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:30:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>>>> their head examined. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you explain that? >>>>> >>>>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >>>> >>>> "Better" in what way? >>> >>> Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and >>> software). >> >> Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast >> enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 >> bit devices and even 16 bit devices. > > Bullshit. Performance is very important. Cost is equally important. > Cost/performance is king. >> >> Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. >> >> Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051? > > Good grief. ARM > >>>>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>>>> development. Go figure. >>>> >>>> I guess they know a winner when they see it. >>> >>> I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining. Whatever. You seem to be trolling. No one cares about performance other than "fast enough". How can it matter if one processor is twice as fast as needed while another processor is 10 times faster than you need even if at the same price? ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't second sourced. I'm pretty well over this discussion. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 20:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c4gqpbti29kl1aprfgsro5ut68a2opaa0k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24758 |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 02:23:29 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 7/28/2016 8:13 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:30:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/27/2016 7:49 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:08:19 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/26/2016 8:12 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:43:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/25/2016 8:22 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:15:41 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps but AVR has no reason for being. Any new customer has to have >>>>>>>> their head examined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you explain that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. There are better alternatives. >>>>> >>>>> "Better" in what way? >>>> >>>> Faster, cheaper, and alternate sources (for both hardware and >>>> software). >>> >>> Faster is seldom a discriminating criterion for selecting an MCU. Fast >>> enough is what is required. AVRs are in the same ballpark as other 8 >>> bit devices and even 16 bit devices. >> >> Bullshit. Performance is very important. Cost is equally important. >> Cost/performance is king. >>> >>> Cost is in the same ballpark as other product lines as well. >>> >>> Which MCUs have alternate sources other than the 8051? >> >> Good grief. ARM >> >>>>>> New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR >>>>>> development. Go figure. >>>>> >>>>> I guess they know a winner when they see it. >>>> >>>> I guess they know there are a lot of heads that need examining. > >Whatever. You seem to be trolling. No one cares about performance >other than "fast enough". How can it matter if one processor is twice >as fast as needed while another processor is 10 times faster than you >need even if at the same price? Because you can do more, with more performance. > >ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >second sourced. Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >I'm pretty well over this discussion. You're lying, again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 13:55 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nnklfm$vkd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24761 |
On 31.7.2016 г. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > ..... >> >> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >> second sourced. > > Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If > they're still building the part, why would you want to change? > > >> I'm pretty well over this discussion. > > You're lying, again. > But he was correct that you are trolling. Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect but we don't have any regular trolls. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 09:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d4urpbhtskrq73em691af7ov3ndv4cq8kp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24766 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> ..... >>> >>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>> second sourced. >> >> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >> >> >>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >> >> You're lying, again. >> > >But he was correct that you are trolling. You're as stupid as he is, obviously. >Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. The hard stuff doesn't have to change. >I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >but we don't have any regular trolls. To put it another way, "here's your sign." A disagreement is not a troll, stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 17:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nnl1jh$6ph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24767 |
On 31.7.2016 г. 16:12, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> > wrote: > >> On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> ..... >>>> >>>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>>> second sourced. >>> >>> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >>> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >>> >>> >>>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >>> >>> You're lying, again. >>> >> >> But he was correct that you are trolling. > > You're as stupid as he is, obviously. Perhaps so, engaging in an exchange with the troll of the group I have known to be that for many years. Not the brightest thing to waste my time with indeed. >> Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >> So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. > > The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of > spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. > The hard stuff doesn't have to change. So you have to redesign the board, you have to modify the software and you have a "second source". Whoever told you you have anything to do with design and programming has lied. >> I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >> could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >> but we don't have any regular trolls. > > To put it another way, "here's your sign." > > A disagreement is not a troll, stupid. Yeah, feel free to disagree you are a troll. Or that 1+1=2, whatever. Dimiter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 10:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kg2spblgegeshjeq30n4dksjj2cpr89st2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24768 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:22:41 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >On 31.7.2016 ?. 16:12, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> ..... >>>>> >>>>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>>>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>>>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>>>> second sourced. >>>> >>>> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >>>> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >>>> >>>> You're lying, again. >>>> >>> >>> But he was correct that you are trolling. >> >> You're as stupid as he is, obviously. > >Perhaps so, engaging in an exchange with the troll of the group >I have known to be that for many years. Not the brightest >thing to waste my time with indeed. Yet you insist on doing what you think to be stupid. That *is* classical stupid. >>> Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >>> So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. >> >> The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of >> spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. >> The hard stuff doesn't have to change. > >So you have to redesign the board, you have to modify the software >and you have a "second source". Whoever told you you have anything >to do with design and programming has lied. Better than having no product to sell. Yes. > >>> I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >>> could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >>> but we don't have any regular trolls. >> >> To put it another way, "here's your sign." >> >> A disagreement is not a troll, stupid. > >Yeah, feel free to disagree you are a troll. Or that 1+1=2, >whatever. Yet you're stupid enough to continue doing something that you think is stupid. Amazing. ...or you're just another liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 17:38 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nnl2gu$9l1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24769 |
On 31.7.2016 г. 17:26, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:22:41 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> > wrote: > >> On 31.7.2016 ?. 16:12, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>> ..... >>>>>> >>>>>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>>>>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>>>>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>>>>> second sourced. >>>>> >>>>> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >>>>> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >>>>> >>>>> You're lying, again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But he was correct that you are trolling. >>> >>> You're as stupid as he is, obviously. >> >> Perhaps so, engaging in an exchange with the troll of the group >> I have known to be that for many years. Not the brightest >> thing to waste my time with indeed. > > Yet you insist on doing what you think to be stupid. That *is* > classical stupid. > >>>> Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >>>> So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. >>> >>> The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of >>> spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. >>> The hard stuff doesn't have to change. >> >> So you have to redesign the board, you have to modify the software >> and you have a "second source". Whoever told you you have anything >> to do with design and programming has lied. > > Better than having no product to sell. Yes. >> >>>> I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >>>> could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >>>> but we don't have any regular trolls. >>> >>> To put it another way, "here's your sign." >>> >>> A disagreement is not a troll, stupid. >> >> Yeah, feel free to disagree you are a troll. Or that 1+1=2, >> whatever. > > Yet you're stupid enough to continue doing something that you think is > stupid. Amazing. ...or you're just another liar. > So where did I lie, Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 10:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ct3spbln1idukjhhkuhj8oihvnfpqikkdk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24770 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:38:22 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >On 31.7.2016 ?. 17:26, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:22:41 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 16:12, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>> ..... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>>>>>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>>>>>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>>>>>> second sourced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >>>>>> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're lying, again. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But he was correct that you are trolling. >>>> >>>> You're as stupid as he is, obviously. >>> >>> Perhaps so, engaging in an exchange with the troll of the group >>> I have known to be that for many years. Not the brightest >>> thing to waste my time with indeed. >> >> Yet you insist on doing what you think to be stupid. That *is* >> classical stupid. >> >>>>> Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >>>>> So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. >>>> >>>> The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of >>>> spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. >>>> The hard stuff doesn't have to change. >>> >>> So you have to redesign the board, you have to modify the software >>> and you have a "second source". Whoever told you you have anything >>> to do with design and programming has lied. >> >> Better than having no product to sell. Yes. >>> >>>>> I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >>>>> could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >>>>> but we don't have any regular trolls. >>>> >>>> To put it another way, "here's your sign." >>>> >>>> A disagreement is not a troll, stupid. >>> >>> Yeah, feel free to disagree you are a troll. Or that 1+1=2, >>> whatever. >> >> Yet you're stupid enough to continue doing something that you think is >> stupid. Amazing. ...or you're just another liar. >> > >So where did I lie, Einstein. You don't read very well. Either you're stupid or you're a liar. Pick one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 17:56 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nnl3jl$d42$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24771 |
On 31.7.2016 г. 17:49, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:38:22 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> > wrote: > >> On 31.7.2016 ?. 17:26, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:22:41 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 16:12, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>>> ..... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>>>>>>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>>>>>>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>>>>>>> second sourced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >>>>>>> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're lying, again. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But he was correct that you are trolling. >>>>> >>>>> You're as stupid as he is, obviously. >>>> >>>> Perhaps so, engaging in an exchange with the troll of the group >>>> I have known to be that for many years. Not the brightest >>>> thing to waste my time with indeed. >>> >>> Yet you insist on doing what you think to be stupid. That *is* >>> classical stupid. >>> >>>>>> Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >>>>>> So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. >>>>> >>>>> The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of >>>>> spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. >>>>> The hard stuff doesn't have to change. >>>> >>>> So you have to redesign the board, you have to modify the software >>>> and you have a "second source". Whoever told you you have anything >>>> to do with design and programming has lied. >>> >>> Better than having no product to sell. Yes. >>>> >>>>>> I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >>>>>> could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >>>>>> but we don't have any regular trolls. >>>>> >>>>> To put it another way, "here's your sign." >>>>> >>>>> A disagreement is not a troll, stupid. >>>> >>>> Yeah, feel free to disagree you are a troll. Or that 1+1=2, >>>> whatever. >>> >>> Yet you're stupid enough to continue doing something that you think is >>> stupid. Amazing. ...or you're just another liar. >>> >> >> So where did I lie, Einstein. > > You don't read very well. Either you're stupid or you're a liar. Pick > one. > Ah, so there is an "either/or" now. Like your second sourced MCU-s which nobody second sources, I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 19:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8s1tpblb4k0bdb9f0fnsaltdqosvm9qb92@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24772 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:56:53 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >On 31.7.2016 ?. 17:49, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:38:22 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 17:26, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:22:41 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 16:12, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:55:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 31.7.2016 ?. 03:06, krw@attt.bizz wrote: >>>>>>>> ..... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ARMs are not second sourced because different manufacturers don't >>>>>>>>> generally make pin compatible packages. Even if they did and use the >>>>>>>>> same processor, they don't use the same peripherals, so they aren't >>>>>>>>> second sourced. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who cares about pinouts? Spin the board if your suppliers croaks. If >>>>>>>> they're still building the part, why would you want to change? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm pretty well over this discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're lying, again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But he was correct that you are trolling. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're as stupid as he is, obviously. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps so, engaging in an exchange with the troll of the group >>>>> I have known to be that for many years. Not the brightest >>>>> thing to waste my time with indeed. >>>> >>>> Yet you insist on doing what you think to be stupid. That *is* >>>> classical stupid. >>>> >>>>>>> Who cares about pinouts. Who cares about the same peripherals. >>>>>>> So where is the second sourcing this is about, Einstein. >>>>>> >>>>>> The peripherals are very similar. If your code isn't a pile of >>>>>> spaghetti, changing one peripheral for another isn't a huge problem. >>>>>> The hard stuff doesn't have to change. >>>>> >>>>> So you have to redesign the board, you have to modify the software >>>>> and you have a "second source". Whoever told you you have anything >>>>> to do with design and programming has lied. >>>> >>>> Better than having no product to sell. Yes. >>>>> >>>>>>> I have yet to see a post of yours which is other than trolling, >>>>>>> could you please keep them within SED, not that CAE is perfect >>>>>>> but we don't have any regular trolls. >>>>>> >>>>>> To put it another way, "here's your sign." >>>>>> >>>>>> A disagreement is not a troll, stupid. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, feel free to disagree you are a troll. Or that 1+1=2, >>>>> whatever. >>>> >>>> Yet you're stupid enough to continue doing something that you think is >>>> stupid. Amazing. ...or you're just another liar. >>>> >>> >>> So where did I lie, Einstein. >> >> You don't read very well. Either you're stupid or you're a liar. Pick >> one. >> > >Ah, so there is an "either/or" now. You said it. I just clarified the choice. >Like your second sourced MCU-s >which nobody second sources, I see. Now who's trolling? So, I'm to assume the answer is "liar". Good enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web