Accelerometer | ADC | ADXL | Adxl20 | AVR | BasicStamp | BX-35 | BX28 | BX35 | COM3 | Compiler | Downloader | EEPROM | Electromagnet | GetADC | GP2D1 | GPS | I2C | IDE | Keypad | LCD | LCD+ | MIDI | Motors | Multitasking | Netmedia | Networking | PCB | PID | PlaySound | PWM | Relays | RTC | Servo | ShiftOut | SitePlayer | SPI | Stack | Timer | USB

I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) More RAM More EEPROM Hardware I2C A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! No need for an external EEPROM !!!! For me it is clear, no discussion Georges

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Not sure they could implement "BASICX" in the same secure manner in the larger/newer/faster devices (128?) .. once they locked the chip so you could not get to their source code you would still have to go to EEPROM to execute 'your' code. I'm sure they are chewing on the problem. I think it would be great if they came out with a straight up compiler. Jim --- In , "Georges" <gluel@s...> wrote: > I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : > > A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) > More RAM > More EEPROM > Hardware I2C > > A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! > > No need for an external EEPROM !!!! > For me it is clear, no discussion > Georges

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Actually you can lock the boot section of the flash and still work with the application section of the flash for storing code. The boot section can be up to 4K words, which would match the current 8535's 8k bytes, which would mean the existing BX interpreter could fit in the boot section. It would be nice to run native code in this manner, but a 10K life on re-flashing might become an issue. The EPROM's are several 100K erase/write cycles -----Original Message----- From: Jim Summers [mailto:] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 4:45 AM To: Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ Not sure they could implement "BASICX" in the same secure manner in the larger/newer/faster devices (128?) .. once they locked the chip so you could not get to their source code you would still have to go to EEPROM to execute 'your' code. I'm sure they are chewing on the problem. I think it would be great if they came out with a straight up compiler. Jim --- In , "Georges" <gluel@s...> wrote: > I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : > > A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) > More RAM > More EEPROM > Hardware I2C > > A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! > > No need for an external EEPROM !!!! > For me it is clear, no discussion > Georges Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Using internal Flash Memory will speed up the interpreter. Another big advantege is the possiblity to upgrade the Firmware easily. Best regards, Georges --- In , "Kelly Small" <dksmall@c...> wrote: > Actually you can lock the boot section of the flash and still work with the > application section of the flash for storing code. The boot section can be > up to 4K words, which would match the current 8535's 8k bytes, which would > mean the existing BX interpreter could fit in the boot section. It would be > nice to run native code in this manner, but a 10K life on re- flashing might > become an issue. The EPROM's are several 100K erase/write cycles > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Summers [mailto:gj_56@y...] > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 4:45 AM > To: > Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ > Not sure they could implement "BASICX" in the same secure manner in > the larger/newer/faster devices (128?) .. once they locked the chip > so you could not get to their source code you would still have to go > to EEPROM to execute 'your' code. I'm sure they are chewing on the > problem. I think it would be great if they came out with a straight > up compiler. > > Jim > > --- In , "Georges" <gluel@s...> wrote: > > I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : > > > > A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) > > More RAM > > More EEPROM > > Hardware I2C > > > > A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! > > > > No need for an external EEPROM !!!! > > > > > > For me it is clear, no discussion > > > > > > Georges > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

One+ year(s?) ago I understood they had used up about every bit available of the 8Kb. I had brought up the subject of porting to a 103 at that time. Taking advantage of the features of a newer chip (128?) might allow 'some' breathing room .. then again it might take up more space .. dunno .. only they would know. Jim --- In , "Kelly Small" <dksmall@c...> wrote: > Actually you can lock the boot section of the flash and still work with the > application section of the flash for storing code. The boot section can be > up to 4K words, which would match the current 8535's 8k bytes, which would > mean the existing BX interpreter could fit in the boot section. It would be > nice to run native code in this manner, but a 10K life on re- flashing might > become an issue. The EPROM's are several 100K erase/write cycles > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Summers [mailto:gj_56@y...] > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 4:45 AM > To: > Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ > Not sure they could implement "BASICX" in the same secure manner in > the larger/newer/faster devices (128?) .. once they locked the chip > so you could not get to their source code you would still have to go > to EEPROM to execute 'your' code. I'm sure they are chewing on the > problem. I think it would be great if they came out with a straight > up compiler. > > Jim > > --- In , "Georges" <gluel@s...> wrote: > > I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : > > > > A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) > > More RAM > > More EEPROM > > Hardware I2C > > > > A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! > > > > No need for an external EEPROM !!!! > > > > > > For me it is clear, no discussion > > > > > > Georges > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I was thinking the same thing. And if they go to straight-up compiling, you drop all the overhead that was needed for the interpreter. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Summers [mailto:] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 5:13 PM To: Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ One+ year(s?) ago I understood they had used up about every bit available of the 8Kb. I had brought up the subject of porting to a 103 at that time. Taking advantage of the features of a newer chip (128?) might allow 'some' breathing room .. then again it might take up more space .. dunno .. only they would know. Jim --- In , "Kelly Small" <dksmall@c...> wrote: > Actually you can lock the boot section of the flash and still work with the > application section of the flash for storing code. The boot section can be > up to 4K words, which would match the current 8535's 8k bytes, which would > mean the existing BX interpreter could fit in the boot section. It would be > nice to run native code in this manner, but a 10K life on re- flashing might > become an issue. The EPROM's are several 100K erase/write cycles > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Summers [mailto:gj_56@y...] > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 4:45 AM > To: > Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ > Not sure they could implement "BASICX" in the same secure manner in > the larger/newer/faster devices (128?) .. once they locked the chip > so you could not get to their source code you would still have to go > to EEPROM to execute 'your' code. I'm sure they are chewing on the > problem. I think it would be great if they came out with a straight > up compiler. > > Jim > > --- In , "Georges" <gluel@s...> wrote: > > I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : > > > > A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) > > More RAM > > More EEPROM > > Hardware I2C > > > > A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! > > > > No need for an external EEPROM !!!! > > > > > > For me it is clear, no discussion > > > > > > Georges > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 05:14 PM 7/12/2003 -0700, you wrote: I was thinking the same thing. And if they go to straight-up compiling, you drop all the overhead that was needed for the interpreter. <---I'm not sure the BX uses an interpreter. If it did, then when IDE's are released with new calls, you wouldn't be able to use them with older BX's, yes? And with the libraries that are part of the IDE, it seems to me we're not dealing with an interpreter at all. I suspect all that resides in the 8535 is a bootloader to load the operating firmware above the boot section of the flash. Ala Atmel.... Ken ------ http://www.ah6le.net The RC-210 Repeater Controller is now shipping! For more information, please visit: http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

And if they really wanted to get nasty .. Maybe .. They could lock the boot section with a small 'unique' core that would allow a chip "only bought from them" to run the compiled code? Jim --- In , "Kelly Small" <dksmall@c...> wrote: > I was thinking the same thing. And if they go to straight-up compiling, you > drop all the overhead that was needed for the interpreter. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Summers [mailto:gj_56@y...] > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 5:13 PM > To: > Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ > One+ year(s?) ago I understood they had used up about every bit > available of the 8Kb. I had brought up the subject of porting to a > 103 at that time. Taking advantage of the features of a newer chip > (128?) might allow 'some' breathing room .. then again it might take > up more space .. dunno .. only they would know. > > Jim > > --- In , "Kelly Small" <dksmall@c...> wrote: > > Actually you can lock the boot section of the flash and still work > with the > > application section of the flash for storing code. The boot > section can be > > up to 4K words, which would match the current 8535's 8k bytes, > which would > > mean the existing BX interpreter could fit in the boot section. It > would be > > nice to run native code in this manner, but a 10K life on re- > flashing might > > become an issue. The EPROM's are several 100K erase/write cycles > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Summers [mailto:gj_56@y...] > > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 4:45 AM > > To: > > Subject: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ > > > > > > Not sure they could implement "BASICX" in the same secure manner > in > > the larger/newer/faster devices (128?) .. once they locked the > chip > > so you could not get to their source code you would still have to > go > > to EEPROM to execute 'your' code. I'm sure they are chewing on > the > > problem. I think it would be great if they came out with a > straight > > up compiler. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In , "Georges" <gluel@s...> wrote: > > > I think that an AVR MEGA 32 is the future : > > > > > > A lot Faster ( 16 Mhz and Internal EEPROM ) > > > More RAM > > > More EEPROM > > > Hardware I2C > > > > > > A Bootloader mode able to update the firmware ! > > > > > > No need for an external EEPROM !!!! > > > > > > > > > For me it is clear, no discussion > > > > > > > > > Georges > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 05:36 PM 7/12/2003 -0700, you wrote: But the 8535 doesn't support a boot-loader. <---Maybe not in the true "Atmel" sense but think about it. A bootloader (of sorts) is loaded into the 8535's flash, telling it to load/look to the external EEPROM for its operating instructions. Part of what makes me think this was looking at what the IDE spits out to the BX when uploading/starting/stopping. Anyway a moot point I suppose. I continue to use the BX-24 in one of my products but have moved onto the ATMega128 for another. The BX is simply too limiting in RAM/ROM. And to be perfectly honest, they're too damn expensive for use in manufactured products, especially when you can buy an ATMega128 for $10... NetMedia really does need to do something if they expect to remain competative. With Bascom and some other offerings out there, NetMedia is losing ground, IMHO... Ken ------ http://www.ah6le.net The RC-210 Repeater Controller is now shipping! For more information, please visit: http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Jim, Lets get real what company would give away for free both the hardware(AVR at cost) and IDE for free. IMHO at production runs of less than 1000 BASICX is a possible potential option, but if your talking of production rus of well over 1000 units is one really talking BASICX. I hope you see the difference. As a learning and teaching device and for small quanity production units, IMHO, it fits the "bill". I really like Netmedia's product at its cost. I do hope they improve it at a cost that keeps them in business and us as consumers buying!!!!!!!! --- Jim Summers <> wrote: > And if they really wanted to get nasty .. > Maybe .. > > They could lock the boot section with a small 'unique' core that > would allow a chip "only bought from them" to run the compiled code? > > Jim > >......................... __________________________________

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Get Real?? Don't read into what I said. I suggested nothing more than what is currently implemented .. a piece of hardware with locked/embedded code. I did not say 'free' anything .. please quote me. I use BASCOM-AVR (~99) and a LOT of home-brew ASM (need for speed, register level) in my current projects. Bought ATMELS 500 series dev kits and have a few 300's laying around. Have a couple of BasicX products around also. Current project (if and when it gets completed .. multi-processor DIS/EFI), will require the purchase of BASCOM-AVR to support the code I provide. There is nothing keeping someone from using the developed HW with their language of choice. I could .. if I wanted to get nasty .. implement the code so the users would have purchase the hardware from 'me'. But .. it is a open source project .. Netmedia is profit oriented. If they stuck (maybe) the OS proper/bootstrap/subset in bootloader and the 'language' in an external compiler I think they would have something 'better'. I'd prefer they didn't .. but not my call. I'm not knocking NetMedia in any manner .. for what it does it does well. Nothing I suggested would cause them to lose income. Charge $x or so for the board and charge for the compiler/IDE or give it away. I'm simply moving functions around. How they price it is up to them. Ref another email: If I remember correctly BASICX uses tokens or some such .. akin to P- code? Jim --- In , Mark Newell <m_l_newell@y...> wrote: > Jim, > > Lets get real what company would give away for free both the > hardware(AVR at cost) and IDE for free. IMHO at production > runs of less than 1000 BASICX is a possible potential option, but > if your talking of production rus of well over 1000 units is > one really talking BASICX. I hope you see the difference. > > As a learning and teaching device and for small quanity > production units, IMHO, it fits the "bill". > > I really like Netmedia's product > at its cost. I do hope they improve it at a cost that keeps > them in business and us as consumers buying!!!!!!!! > --- Jim Summers <gj_56@y...> wrote: > > And if they really wanted to get nasty .. > > Maybe .. > > > > They could lock the boot section with a small 'unique' core that > > would allow a chip "only bought from them" to run the compiled code? > > > > Jim > > > >......................... > > __________________________________

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Jim, I will take one more chance and then I would like to see more discussion of our projects, how we do them and how to help each other. (If you don't want things read into a message make sure you say everything) Here I go: <quote> And if they really wanted to get nasty .. </quote> The first line, to me, set the tone. No grins, no toung in cheek, no winks. Therefore they are nasty and if they really want to get nasty. <quote> Maybe .. </quote> Sinister, plotting!!?? <quote> They could lock the boot section with a small 'unique' core that would allow a chip "only bought from them" to run the compiled code? </quote> Remember tone of first line. Ok they are going to give us what we want, but dog gone they are still going to make me buy the chip from them. I think you were saying you want to use the BASICX development system to port code to the cheapest AVR chip you could find and resell it. Very smsll income to Netmedia for the Development System and no income from the cheapest chips. I appoligize to the group if you think I am wasting time and space. A project I had thought of would have to run a 7 state Kalman Filter(lots of matrix math, trig and floating point numbers) several times inside of a PID control loop running 1Hz. I think it might be really stretching BX-24. Cheers, Mark --- Jim Summers <> wrote: > Get Real?? Don't read into what I said. > > I suggested nothing more than what is currently implemented .. a > piece of hardware with locked/embedded code. I did not say 'free' > anything .. please quote me. I use BASCOM-AVR (~99) and a LOT of > home-brew ASM (need for speed, register level) in my current > projects. Bought ATMELS 500 series dev kits and have a few 300's > laying around. Have a couple of BasicX products around also. > > Current project (if and when it gets completed .. multi-processor > DIS/EFI), will require the purchase of BASCOM-AVR to support the code > I provide. There is nothing keeping someone from using the developed > HW with their language of choice. I could .. if I wanted to get > nasty .. implement the code so the users would have purchase the > hardware from 'me'. But .. it is a open source project .. Netmedia > is profit oriented. If they stuck (maybe) the OS > proper/bootstrap/subset in bootloader and the 'language' in an > external compiler I think they would have something 'better'. I'd > prefer they didn't .. but not my call. > > I'm not knocking NetMedia in any manner .. for what it does it does > well. > > Nothing I suggested would cause them to lose income. Charge $x or so > for the board and charge for the compiler/IDE or give it away. I'm > simply moving functions around. How they price it is up to them. > > Ref another email: > If I remember correctly BASICX uses tokens or some such .. akin to P- > code? > > Jim > --- In , Mark Newell <m_l_newell@y...> wrote: > > Jim, > > > > Lets get real what company would give away for free both the > > hardware(AVR at cost) and IDE for free. IMHO at production > > runs of less than 1000 BASICX is a possible potential option, but > > if your talking of production rus of well over 1000 units is > > one really talking BASICX. I hope you see the difference. > > > > As a learning and teaching device and for small quanity > > production units, IMHO, it fits the "bill". > > > > I really like Netmedia's product > > at its cost. I do hope they improve it at a cost that keeps > > them in business and us as consumers buying!!!!!!!! > > > > > > --- Jim Summers <gj_56@y...> wrote: > > > And if they really wanted to get nasty .. > > > Maybe .. > > > > > > They could lock the boot section with a small 'unique' core that > > > would allow a chip "only bought from them" to run the compiled > code? > > > > > > Jim > > > > > >......................... > > > > __________________________________ > __________________________________

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In , Mark Newell <m_l_newell@y...> wrote: > Jim, > I will take one more chance and then I would like to see more > discussion of our projects, how we do them and how to help > each other. (If you don't want things read into a message > make sure you say everything). You made several mistakes in the 'read' of what I said. You should have asked if you had any doubts or need for clarification. You assumed hence erred. PS: You don't run the show here, and neither do I. And if you would take your blinders off .. I AM trying to help. > Here I go: Off he went .. > <quote> > And if they really wanted to get nasty .. > </quote> > > The first line, to me, set the tone. > No grins, no toung in cheek, no winks. > Therefore they are nasty and if they really > want to get nasty. ??? Nasty as in 'unpleasant or annoying'. I owe you no "grins, no toung in cheek, no winks." Frankly, who are 'you', to dictate to me? Gettin a tad personal .. then again I'm following your reasoning and assuming .. how am I doing ?? > <quote> > Maybe .. > </quote> > > Sinister, plotting!!?? Of course. The world is full of plots. I'm naturally MEGA-paranoid and have a full arsenal of every available [left to your imagination least BIG BROTHER is watching] known to mankind (and then some). <please note lack of grins, TONGUE, winks, etc> > <quote> > They could lock the boot section with a small 'unique' core that > would allow a chip "only bought from them" to run the compiled > code? > </quote> > > Remember tone of first line. As you interpreted it. But that IS exactly what BASICX is .. an "only bought from them" chip with a protected core. > Ok they are going to give us what we want, but dog gone they > are still going to make me buy the chip from them. I think you > were saying you want to use the BASICX development system to > port code to the cheapest AVR chip you could find and resell > it. Very smsll income to Netmedia for the Development System > and no income from the cheapest chips. Ah .. no. I said they could. Again that is their option. They want to protect their code .. they can. No amount of 'my' opinion is going to change that. I also stated that I saw do depreciation in $$ by doing so. I spoke with Netmedia about this general subject loooooong ago on and offline (locking, protecting the brain) and it was 'kinda' explained to me why they did what they did. It was a nice casual conversation and Manning was pretty cool about the matter ('cool' as in 'amiable'). They have an opportunity to modify what they do and I threw out my opines befitting current AVR Mega products. If I was out of line I'd expect a moderator to jump in and tell me to cool my heels. BTW: The only difference between a personal and professional opinion is <drum roll> .. one you pay for. > I appoligize to the group if you think I am wasting time and > space. You are, but thanx anyway <WINK, GRIN, ETC> please note the "form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcasm". > A project I had thought of would have to run a 7 state Kalman > Filter(lots of matrix math, trig and floating point numbers) > several times inside of a PID control loop running 1Hz. > I think it might be really stretching BX-24. Dunno. But maybe not a BX-128. Read up on the 128's (and the 64/32/etc) feature set .. poke around the hardware math section; can save quite a few clock ticks. But for all the neat stuff it does I have to shutdown the uC to do any stable ADC reads ... a no-can-do for my app. I have gotten up-front and personal with every lower register in the chip (whilst avoiding BASCOM clobbering me [twiddles a register I'd used] on occasion) and many of the regular and extended registers .. basically running a .01ms (16MHz) state machine (as close to writing an OS as I'll ever get) using 'switches' to define next state based on current state results. I let BASCOM do the overhead stuff and I do the 'nasty' stuff elsewhere. I started that project with BASICX and it could not handle it hence I had to jump ship. But again .. for what it does it does well and I stand by every statement made. But it could do better. They have an opportunity .. lets see what they do. Next time .. ask 1st and/or go offline? Jim

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )