Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26679

Re: A clear victory for MMP

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/13/2013 4:36 AM, Rafael Deliano wrote:
>> The GA144 is the first device of it's kind.
>
> Not really.
> There has been a long tradition of arrays down to
> ILLIAC IV. They had big CPUs ( ILLIAC, Transputer ) and
> small "CPUs"/PEs like CLIP4 and DAP. The later were
> actully only SIMD-arrays, no independent CPUs. But
> they are somewhat comparable to the crippled GA144.
> The DAP was arguably commercially viable, as it was
> still around in the 80ies. It used a fat SRAM early on
> and "a variant of Fortan because thats what the
> customers wants" to paraphrase them. So no
> Color-Forth, no Spin-language, no Occam.
> The CLIP group and everyone else soon too came to the
> conclusion that they needed more RAM per PE too.
> The Martin Marietta GAPP had even a odd Forth
> connection: Ting used a NC4000 as I/O-processor.
> There is a vast amount of literature out there
> about these machines, how they evolved, what applications
> were viable. Guess computer cowboy Moore isn't a reader.

What is similar to the GA144 other than the fact these were multiprocessor?


> Key problem: these machines were and are almost
> exclusively for the "government projects" market.
> The real computer cowboy is Chip Gracey because
> his chip you can buy at digikey and ebay. Usable
> for the hobbyist today, can slowly penetrate to industry.

Again, nothing like the GA144 except multiple processors.  If you think 
the GA144 is just a multiprocessor chip you just don't get the GA144.


>> But what is wrong with the package? If
>> you are expecting DIPs you are so out of step with the real world, the
>> world that actually buys product and keeps factory doors open.
>
> That world doesn't buy from a company like GA. If they had any
> credibility there they would get venture capital.
> Hobbyists accept GA, small industry too. If you run small
> projects using exotic chips isnt much risk. But a lot of projects
> die at the breadboard stage. Not everyone has the equipment
> to get BGAs and similar stuff in and out of boards.
> Most users wouldn't mind if the "DIL40" is a FR4 carrier board
> with a small LCN/BGA and capacitors on it that plugs in a DIL40
> socket. Yes its more expensive, but it are boutique chips anyway.

Hobbiests are unimportant to the profit of any company over $1 
million/yr revenues, unless you are Heathkit or the like.  Zero point in 
even discussing the hobby market regarding GA.


>> If you are comparing the parallax with the GA144 you don't understand
>> the GA144. It is *not* just a collection of many processors. Viewing
>> it that way gets you nothing. Think of a 22V10 compared to an FPGA,
>> that would be the Parallax compared to the GA144.
>
> As far as i remember there was an evolution from smallish single
> CPUs MuP21 ( Ting ), F21 ( Jeff Fox ) that worked on external memory.
> And were in no way competitive with controllers with integrated
> memory from industry. So that was a dead end.

You forget the RTX2000 which is the closest thing ever to an actual 
Forth CPU.  Its life has ended, but it had a useful run.


> The F18 CPU was scaled down further to exclusively use SRAM on chip.
> And a very rudimentary 4-way interface was patched on so these
> can form an array. And thats it. There were never any thoughts
> who should use it and why and how. Otherwise simulations how that
> thing could do a FIR-filter or a fourier transform ( via Chirp-Z )
> would have been done and a application notes about it would be
> ready now.

I agree that it appears the applications for the GA144 were unknown at 
the time it was designed.  Rather it seemed to be an interesting design 
optimized for certain features while totally ignoring requirements in 
many apps.


> On the other hand the machine of Chip Gracey has vast amounts
> of SRAM ( 32kByte ), is easier to understand by the average user
> and a better fit to his needs.

To Chip Gracey's needs?  Oh, the user's needs... really?  All of them? 
that's a rather large statement and ignores the advantages of the GA144. 
  What if your needs included ultra low power consumption?


>  >> * test the market and finance via kickstarter / indiegogo.
>  > That is an interesting idea actually.
>
> Beeing low volume ( <500 ) patching a-ready-to-run
> hardware on a FR4 carrier board its doable by stackprocessor
> on FPGA. Even a controller with FORTH-in-ROM/FLASH would
> be applicable. Kickstarter / indiegogo is not about fancy
> technology.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

-- 

Rick

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

A clear victory for MMP Chris <xrissmith@me.com> - 2013-10-06 18:24 -0700
  Re: A clear victory for MMP Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-06 18:48 -0700
    Re: A clear victory for MMP jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk - 2013-10-08 10:51 -0700
  Re: A clear victory for MMP Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-07 04:44 -0700
    Re: A clear victory for MMP Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-10-07 07:13 -0500
      Re: A clear victory for MMP Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-07 05:43 -0700
    Re: A clear victory for MMP visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-10-08 10:42 -0700
    Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-11 02:18 -0400
      Re: A clear victory for MMP "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-10-10 20:35 -1000
    Re: A clear victory for MMP "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-25 18:05 -0400
  Re: A clear victory for MMP Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-10-10 11:28 -0700
    Re: A clear victory for MMP albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-10-10 23:01 +0000
      Re: A clear victory for MMP Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-10-11 20:35 +0200
        Re: A clear victory for MMP forther <forther@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 12:47 -0700
          Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:36 -0400
            Re: A clear victory for MMP forther <forther@gmail.com> - 2013-10-13 23:12 -0700
              Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 13:24 -0400
                Re: A clear victory for MMP Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-25 12:06 -0700
                Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 02:40 -0400
                Re: A clear victory for MMP Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-26 00:14 -0700
        Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-12 22:32 -0400
          Re: A clear victory for MMP Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-10-13 10:36 +0200
            Re: A clear victory for MMP Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-13 20:46 -0700
            Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 13:55 -0400
              Re: A clear victory for MMP Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 09:25 +0100
                Re: A clear victory for MMP Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-27 03:00 -0700
                Re: A clear victory for MMP Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 11:50 +0100
                Re: A clear victory for MMP albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-10-27 10:02 +0000
                Re: A clear victory for MMP Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 13:37 +0100
                Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 12:28 -0400
                Re: A clear victory for MMP rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 06:07 -0400
                Re: A clear victory for MMP Rafael Deliano <rafael_deliano@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 13:03 +0100
        Re: A clear victory for MMP the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-06 16:57 -0800
  Re: A clear victory for MMP Chris <xrissmith@me.com> - 2013-10-16 20:11 -0700
    Re: A clear victory for MMP albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-10-17 12:14 +0000
      Re: A clear victory for MMP John Rible <google@sandpipers.com> - 2013-10-17 10:51 -0700
      Re: A clear victory for MMP "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-10-18 03:30 -0400
  Re: A clear victory for MMP Chris <xrissmith@me.com> - 2013-11-01 20:13 -0700
  Re: A clear victory for MMP the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-06 16:59 -0800

csiph-web