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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 10:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nml0i1$dg3$4@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #24652 |
On 2016-07-18, Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >> ... Intel has been making noise about >> getting back into the embedded market, >> where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line > > Intel dropped the ball when they gave up the xScale ARM line > to focus on x86 architecture from Pentium to Atom to Quark. > > Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market > with the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, > and the Edison SoC (system on chip). > But I see nobody really adopting that despite > familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture. > > Intel does not seem to collaborate with others. intel collaborated with AMD in the 80s and that is still costing them. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 20:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <g3htob5s5nes2irohuq32e2jvd1q8ks1pa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24661 |
On 19 Jul 2016 10:48:33 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2016-07-18, Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>> ... Intel has been making noise about >>> getting back into the embedded market, >>> where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line >> >> Intel dropped the ball when they gave up the xScale ARM line >> to focus on x86 architecture from Pentium to Atom to Quark. >> >> Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market >> with the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, >> and the Edison SoC (system on chip). >> But I see nobody really adopting that despite >> familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture. >> >> Intel does not seem to collaborate with others. > >intel collaborated with AMD in the 80s and that is still costing them. It could be argued that they'd be nowhere without AMD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmldck$ilc$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #24652 |
On 2016-07-18, Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote:
> Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market with
> the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, and the
> Edison SoC (system on chip). But I see nobody really adopting that
> despite familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture.
Because the more familiar you are with the x86 architecture, the less
comfortable you are with it.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! An air of FRENCH FRIES
at permeates my nostrils!!
gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmtf5c$gog$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24428 |
Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: > Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already > some serious contention with Atmel employees. > > http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 > > I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, > AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the > PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out > of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? > I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmtgoo$la7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24687 |
On 7/22/2016 11:46 AM, pozz wrote: > Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >> >> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >> >> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >> > > I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel > Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). > > However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online > support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. > > Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. Whose online support *does* work? I can't run synthesis in the latest update of the Lattice tools and support can't even seem to understand a simple question of "what does error code 3 mean"? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn4e1a$lsq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24688 |
Il 22/07/2016 18:14, rickman ha scritto: > On 7/22/2016 11:46 AM, pozz wrote: >> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>> >>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>> >>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>> >> >> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). >> >> However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >> support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. >> >> Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. > > Whose online support *does* work? Before Atmel was bought from Microchip, I contacted directly Atmel support (through my Atmel section of their website, "Open a support case") and some guys helped me. The answers arrived about after 2-3 working days. Now it seems the Atmel support can't be contacted anymore. > I can't run synthesis in the latest > update of the Lattice tools and support can't even seem to understand a > simple question of "what does error code 3 mean"? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 20:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5gadpb1lvhnrpbqnlcq6l9ro7317qmmmlq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24690 |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:10:34 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >Il 22/07/2016 18:14, rickman ha scritto: >> On 7/22/2016 11:46 AM, pozz wrote: >>> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>> >>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>> >>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>>> >>> >>> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >>> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). >>> >>> However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >>> support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. >>> >>> Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. >> >> Whose online support *does* work? > >Before Atmel was bought from Microchip, I contacted directly Atmel >support (through my Atmel section of their website, "Open a support >case") and some guys helped me. The answers arrived about after 2-3 >working days. I assume you "bought _by_". > >Now it seems the Atmel support can't be contacted anymore. That's to be expected in such an upheaval. MicroChip support has been far better than Atmel though, as a large (and bleading edge) customer I could get hold of someone in Atmel anytime I needed it (not always a "good" answer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r6n5pb1qb6e69gptnlp7q7rctjnfllkhj2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24687 |
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >> >> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >> >> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >> > >I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). The AVR architecture isn't all that great and the framework is somewhat less great. AVR peripherals are quite nice, though. >However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. "It" meaning Atmel? Nope. Meaning "AVR", perhaps (to probably). THe larger PICs are dead, IMO. A bit late. Though MicroChip is smart enough to make money where there is money to be made. > >Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. To spite your face?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 09:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn4eat$n1f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24689 |
Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>> >>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>> >>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>> >> >> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). > > The AVR architecture isn't all that great I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. > and the framework is > somewhat less great. They aren't so great, but usable. Anyway you can use gcc compiler (with avr-libc) with your preferred tool. > AVR peripherals are quite nice, though. > >> However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >> support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. > > "It" meaning Atmel? Yes. > Nope. Meaning "AVR", perhaps (to probably). Microchip will kill AVR and many things related to Atmel: free gcc compilers and tools, low cost debugger/programmers, mainly low cost devices. > THe > larger PICs are dead, IMO. A bit late. Though MicroChip is smart > enough to make money where there is money to be made. >> >> Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. > > To spite your face? I don't like Microchip support, tools, technical supporto, sales approach. Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn56ct$jti$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #24691 |
On 2016-07-25, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto:
>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great
>
> I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better.
Talk about damning with faint praise...
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm pretending I'm
at pulling in a TROUT! Am I
gmail.com doing it correctly??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 23:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3200a8f750a1f026989805@172.16.0.1> |
| In reply to | #24694 |
In article <nn56ct$jti$1@reader2.panix.com>, invalid@invalid.invalid says... > > On 2016-07-25, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: > > Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: > > >> The AVR architecture isn't all that great > > > > I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. > > Talk about damning with faint praise... Me thinks, you resemble this to the which is better Cyanide or Arsenic... -- Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/pi/> Raspberry Pi Add-ons <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 23:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nn66ok$osb$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #24697 |
On 2016-07-25, Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote: > In article <nn56ct$jti$1@reader2.panix.com>, invalid@invalid.invalid > says... >> >> On 2016-07-25, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: >> >> >> The AVR architecture isn't all that great >> > >> > I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. >> >> Talk about damning with faint praise... > > Me thinks, you resemble this to the which is better Cyanide or > Arsenic... Actually, I don't think AVR is all that bad. The lack of 16 bit operations is a PITA, but the gcc port is well done. Maybe the compilers for PIC have improved (yikes, it's been 10 years since I compated AVR and PIC), but the PIC compilers used to be dreadful. I just struck me that saying something is better than PIC is like saying somerthing is "more fun than passing a kidney stone". The yardstick these days for small/cheap MCUs is probably Cortex-M0 -- or even the venerable MSP430. -- Grant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 19:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nn688h$vh8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24698 |
On 7/25/2016 7:18 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > > I just struck me that saying something is better than PIC is like > saying somerthing is "more fun than passing a kidney stone". There are times when listening to a boring friend I wish I would get a kidney stone... You never half to apologize when you are passing a kidney stone. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 17:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o316gj$ac4$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #24697 |
In article <MPG.3200a8f750a1f026989805@172.16.0.1>, Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> wrote: >In article <nn56ct$jti$1@reader2.panix.com>, invalid@invalid.invalid >says... >> >> On 2016-07-25, 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. >> >> Talk about damning with faint praise... > > >Me thinks, you resemble this to the which is better Cyanide or >Arsenic... Cyanide is much better. The Nazi leaders and their children died within minutes with cyanide. For a description of the suffering involved in arsenic see Madame Bovary, Flaubert. Also recovering from small quantities of cyanide is total or unnecessary, as it is present in quite some food. Small doses of arsenic accumulate and permanently affect your health. So what is your point? >Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 17:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v9q85chdag4oui233ju32lu68afv8jn4m1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25593 |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:58:59 +0100 (CET), albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote: >Also recovering from small quantities of cyanide is total >or unnecessary, as it is present in quite some food. >Small doses of arsenic accumulate and permanently affect >your health. Cyanides come in both organic and inorganic forms. The inorganic forms are deadly. In the small quantities typically found in foods, the body can eliminate the organic forms. George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 20:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fmadpbhicfhs2egfbjm7brqasskgoh5n48@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24691 |
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: >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>> >>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>> >>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>>> >>> >>> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >>> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). >> >> 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. >> and the framework is >> somewhat less great. > >They aren't so great, but usable. Anyway you can use gcc compiler (with >avr-libc) with your preferred tool. ...except for all the bugs and incompatibilities in the new releases. I think they use Xilinx' software development group. ;-) > >> AVR peripherals are quite nice, though. >> >>> However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >>> support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. >> >> "It" meaning Atmel? > >Yes. > > >> Nope. Meaning "AVR", perhaps (to probably). > >Microchip will kill AVR and many things related to Atmel: free gcc >compilers and tools, low cost debugger/programmers, mainly low cost devices. I don't see any of the above to be true. Well, the AVR part probably is. It's superfluous. I don't see them forcing expensive tools down the throats of 8-bit micro developers. > >> THe >> larger PICs are dead, IMO. A bit late. Though MicroChip is smart >> enough to make money where there is money to be made. >>> >>> Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. >> >> To spite your face? > >I don't like Microchip support, tools, technical supporto, sales >approach. Nothing. I'm exactly the opposite. I like their support better and the company is run *far* better. Atmel dropped the ball several times on their ARM M7 rollout. I think MicroChip will listen to our needs better, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 22:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nn6io4$o51$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24702 |
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: >>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>>> >>>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>>>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >>>> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). >>> >>> 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? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <evufpb1mfs4lah99fqstpqit8bljs62r8b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24704 |
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: >>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>>>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>>>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>>>>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >>>>> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). >>>> >>>> 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. New information: Microchip is significantly increasing AVR development. Go figure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 21:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <874m7baej5.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #24724 |
krw@attt.bizz writes: >>Can you explain that? > Sure. There are better alternatives. That's not a very informative answer. Concrete suggestions would be helpful. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 19:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uuhipbh6ed5uk1t94fhg01ecfdnt991d15@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24727 |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:30:38 -0700, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >krw@attt.bizz writes: >>>Can you explain that? >> Sure. There are better alternatives. > >That's not a very informative answer. Concrete suggestions would be >helpful. ;-) If you can't find them, you need your head examined. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web