Sign in
Search rabbit-semi
Subscribe to rabbit-semi
Sponsor
Ads
Discussion Groups
See Also
Discussion Groups | Rabbit-Semi | RCM 2000 soon to be obsolete?
This is a group for folks designing and programming embedded systems using the Rabbit Semiconductor C-programmable microcontroller. Rabbit Semi is a spin-off from Z-World who makes a variety of embedded modules and tools. This group is not affiliated with either Rabbit or Z-World, but is a user forum for sharing ideas, asking questions, flaunting knowledge, and other typical user group stuff. The Rabbit is a powerful uC, supported by a full-featured C-compiler.
RCM 2000 soon to be obsolete? - martha_moses - Apr 29 13:20:56 2009
I've noticed quite a few new Core products being developed with increasingly sophisticated
functionality. We use RCM 2000 cores because of their simplicity, decent memory, and small
size.
Does anyone know if and when the RCM 2000 is scheduled to cease production?
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Does anyone know if and when the RCM 2000 is scheduled to cease production?
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: RCM 2000 soon to be obsolete? - Jon - May 3 8:03:31 2009
I second the question. I'm using R3000 because it has an almost perfect IO count for my
needs and a reasonable price. I am concerned about Rabbit branching into all of the niche
models and not being able to handle the cost of supporting them in the future.
This is also a significant source of bloat to DC, running all the wizards and precompile things to handle their latest brainfarts.
Sorry, but I vent. Rabbit tells me there will be no problem....
Jon
--- In r...@yahoogroups.com, "martha_moses" wrote:
>
> I've noticed quite a few new Core products being developed with increasingly sophisticated functionality. We use RCM 2000 cores because of their simplicity, decent memory, and small size.
>
> Does anyone know if and when the RCM 2000 is scheduled to cease production?
>
------------------------------------
______________________________
controlSUITE™ software. Comprehensive. Intuitive. Optimized.
Real-world software for real-time control. Details Here!
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
This is also a significant source of bloat to DC, running all the wizards and precompile things to handle their latest brainfarts.
Sorry, but I vent. Rabbit tells me there will be no problem....
Jon
--- In r...@yahoogroups.com, "martha_moses"
>
> I've noticed quite a few new Core products being developed with increasingly sophisticated functionality. We use RCM 2000 cores because of their simplicity, decent memory, and small size.
>
> Does anyone know if and when the RCM 2000 is scheduled to cease production?
>
------------------------------------
______________________________
controlSUITE™ software. Comprehensive. Intuitive. Optimized.
Real-world software for real-time control. Details Here!
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: RCM 2000 soon to be obsolete? - allsoft01a - May 6 10:34:59 2009
I would be surprised if they obsoleted the 2000's since I am guessing they have a fairly
wide usage and I am sure they have recouped all their engineering and development expenses
so now it should be a profitable product line.
I am slightly concerned as well with the overall direction of their product lines. I am a user of the rcm3000 cores. I had hoped that their would be some improved core modules that are pin compatible to allow upgrades to current product lines. Like a 5000 series core that is pin compatible with the RCM3300.
DC also seems to be getting very bloated. It is not always so easy to move to newer versions of DC as it almost always breaks the code of previous versions which requires a lot of work to get the new version going. For example I tried to take a 9.25 application to 9.62 and it increased my memory usage beyond the available memory. Now i have to spend the time moving things around and re-writing some code if I want to go to 9.62. IMHO I think they should either re-write DC completely or just move to Softools.
My other concern is the cost. As I look at future projects I am having a harder time justifying an 8 bit processor when I can get a 32 bit for almost the same price.
Just my thoughts. Overall I happy with Rabbit. They are still very high on my list when I am working on new projects.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
I am slightly concerned as well with the overall direction of their product lines. I am a user of the rcm3000 cores. I had hoped that their would be some improved core modules that are pin compatible to allow upgrades to current product lines. Like a 5000 series core that is pin compatible with the RCM3300.
DC also seems to be getting very bloated. It is not always so easy to move to newer versions of DC as it almost always breaks the code of previous versions which requires a lot of work to get the new version going. For example I tried to take a 9.25 application to 9.62 and it increased my memory usage beyond the available memory. Now i have to spend the time moving things around and re-writing some code if I want to go to 9.62. IMHO I think they should either re-write DC completely or just move to Softools.
My other concern is the cost. As I look at future projects I am having a harder time justifying an 8 bit processor when I can get a 32 bit for almost the same price.
Just my thoughts. Overall I happy with Rabbit. They are still very high on my list when I am working on new projects.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: RCM 2000 soon to be obsolete? - Dan Allen - May 6 11:12:37 2009
Wow, that's a pretty elegant way of putting all that.
At first it seemed overly obvious, but then I thought "no, i'm just in
strong agreement".
I tried DC9.5x and DC9.6x both with my the sample code for Wiegand libs,
it broke after 9.25 so i've been sticking with that.
Not sure how much time/money I want to spend modifying my code for
SoftTools..
Although pricing isn't going up, I was hoping it may come down a bit with
all the new cores lately. Nothing huge but at least a few points here and
there.
Dan...
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, allsoft01a wrote:
> I would be surprised if they obsoleted the 2000's since I am guessing they
> have a fairly wide usage and I am sure they have recouped all their
> engineering and development expenses so now it should be a profitable
> product line.
>
> I am slightly concerned as well with the overall direction of their product
> lines. I am a user of the rcm3000 cores. I had hoped that their would be
> some improved core modules that are pin compatible to allow upgrades to
> current product lines. Like a 5000 series core that is pin compatible with
> the RCM3300.
>
> DC also seems to be getting very bloated. It is not always so easy to move
> to newer versions of DC as it almost always breaks the code of previous
> versions which requires a lot of work to get the new version going. For
> example I tried to take a 9.25 application to 9.62 and it increased my
> memory usage beyond the available memory. Now i have to spend the time
> moving things around and re-writing some code if I want to go to 9.62. IMHO
> I think they should either re-write DC completely or just move to Softools.
>
> My other concern is the cost. As I look at future projects I am having a
> harder time justifying an 8 bit processor when I can get a 32 bit for almost
> the same price.
>
> Just my thoughts. Overall I happy with Rabbit. They are still very high on
> my list when I am working on new projects.
>
>
>
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
At first it seemed overly obvious, but then I thought "no, i'm just in
strong agreement".
I tried DC9.5x and DC9.6x both with my the sample code for Wiegand libs,
it broke after 9.25 so i've been sticking with that.
Not sure how much time/money I want to spend modifying my code for
SoftTools..
Although pricing isn't going up, I was hoping it may come down a bit with
all the new cores lately. Nothing huge but at least a few points here and
there.
Dan...
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, allsoft01a
> I would be surprised if they obsoleted the 2000's since I am guessing they
> have a fairly wide usage and I am sure they have recouped all their
> engineering and development expenses so now it should be a profitable
> product line.
>
> I am slightly concerned as well with the overall direction of their product
> lines. I am a user of the rcm3000 cores. I had hoped that their would be
> some improved core modules that are pin compatible to allow upgrades to
> current product lines. Like a 5000 series core that is pin compatible with
> the RCM3300.
>
> DC also seems to be getting very bloated. It is not always so easy to move
> to newer versions of DC as it almost always breaks the code of previous
> versions which requires a lot of work to get the new version going. For
> example I tried to take a 9.25 application to 9.62 and it increased my
> memory usage beyond the available memory. Now i have to spend the time
> moving things around and re-writing some code if I want to go to 9.62. IMHO
> I think they should either re-write DC completely or just move to Softools.
>
> My other concern is the cost. As I look at future projects I am having a
> harder time justifying an 8 bit processor when I can get a 32 bit for almost
> the same price.
>
> Just my thoughts. Overall I happy with Rabbit. They are still very high on
> my list when I am working on new projects.
>
>
>
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: RCM 2000 soon to be obsolete? - Finbarr - May 7 5:14:35 2009
--- In r...@yahoogroups.com, "allsoft01a" wrote:
> I would be surprised if they obsoleted the 2000's since I am
> guessing they have a fairly wide usage and I am sure they
> have recouped all their engineering and development expenses
> so now it should be a profitable product line.
I've always used the 2000s for simple designs where cost is a premium, but with the arrival of the 5600 and 5700 MiniCores I think I'd be fairly unlikely to use them again - especially when they get round to launching the version with an RJ45 fitted in the gap on the 5700. The only snag is that you can't really avoid using surface mount technology for the motherboard but that's not much of a problem now.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
> I would be surprised if they obsoleted the 2000's since I am
> guessing they have a fairly wide usage and I am sure they
> have recouped all their engineering and development expenses
> so now it should be a profitable product line.
I've always used the 2000s for simple designs where cost is a premium, but with the arrival of the 5600 and 5700 MiniCores I think I'd be fairly unlikely to use them again - especially when they get round to launching the version with an RJ45 fitted in the gap on the 5700. The only snag is that you can't really avoid using surface mount technology for the motherboard but that's not much of a problem now.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Port pin issue - Alexis - May 7 12:01:41 2009
Hi All
I have an issue a piece of code attached below which worked on DC8.61.
It does not work on DC9.50. It toggles the direction of an RS485 driver.
Any help would be appreciated.
void msbtx(void)
{
static unsigned char PortD_OP;
// This function is called before transmitting a packet.
// For RS-485, it should enable TX mode.
// Pull PD3 High to enable RS485 transmission
PortD_OP = PDDRShadow | 0x08;
WrPortI(PDDR,&PDDRShadow,PortD_OP);
}
Please help if you can.
Regards
A.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
I have an issue a piece of code attached below which worked on DC8.61.
It does not work on DC9.50. It toggles the direction of an RS485 driver.
Any help would be appreciated.
void msbtx(void)
{
static unsigned char PortD_OP;
// This function is called before transmitting a packet.
// For RS-485, it should enable TX mode.
// Pull PD3 High to enable RS485 transmission
PortD_OP = PDDRShadow | 0x08;
WrPortI(PDDR,&PDDRShadow,PortD_OP);
}
Please help if you can.
Regards
A.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Port Pin - Alexis - May 7 12:05:55 2009
>
I made a mistake it is always high in transmit mode.
I need to pull it low to enable receive.
void msbrx(void)
{
static unsigned char PortD_OP;
// This function is called after transmitting a packet.
// For RS-485, it should disable TX mode.
// Pull PD3 low to enable RS485 reception
PortD_OP = PDDRShadow & 0xF7;
WrPortI(PDDR,&PDDRShadow,PortD_OP);
}
Is what I use to receive but it no longer works on DC9.50.
A.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
I made a mistake it is always high in transmit mode.
I need to pull it low to enable receive.
void msbrx(void)
{
static unsigned char PortD_OP;
// This function is called after transmitting a packet.
// For RS-485, it should disable TX mode.
// Pull PD3 low to enable RS485 reception
PortD_OP = PDDRShadow & 0xF7;
WrPortI(PDDR,&PDDRShadow,PortD_OP);
}
Is what I use to receive but it no longer works on DC9.50.
A.
------------------------------------
(You need to be a member of rabbit-semi -- send a blank email to rabbit-semi-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )