Reply by Anton Erasmus March 3, 20042004-03-03
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:06:17 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com>
wrote:

>Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own >> linker command files. The latest version of the compiler has these >> files included. If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..." >> >> Excellent. Just what I wanted to know. >> >> you need to fix?" Answer: I see your support contract has expired. >> Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as >> well as priority access to technical support. Let me know if you have >> any questions." >> > >Justifiable in both cases. New functionality costs money; support costs >money. Those of us who can be bothered to keep in support get very good >service. > >pete
I do not believe the second response was warented. Nowhere is his question actually answered. They could have said that it is a known bug, and it has been fixed. To get the fix he needs to upgrade or renew is support package. I stopped subscribing to any support packages after I had a similar response. (From another company) I payed for an upgrade, and the bug I was complaining/asking about had not been fixed in the latest release. Regards Anton Erasmus
Reply by James Beck March 3, 20042004-03-03
In article <js5c40183bns5tpjd7jl66699idp2se7ss@4ax.com>, mtj2
@btopenworld.com says...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:18:35 GMT, James Beck wrote: > > >I guess I'm spoiled because I keep up with the yearly maintainance > >agreements. I use the tools to make a living, so the yearly cost is > >more than reasonable for the return on the investment. Their response > >is a bit snooty, isn't it? I'll have to make meantion of it nest time I > >call them. > > I don't think it's at all unreasonable. Tech support is an expensive > resource, and it makes sense to give priority to those who are > actually paying for it.
I agree, but if there is a problem with the tool they should have said so. It wouldn't have taken anymore time or energy to give a more informative response.
> > I doubt you'd be too happy if, when you rang up with an urgent > problem, they told you you'd have to wait while they sorted out a > problem with some free software for someone who didn't have a support > contract.
That's true enough and that's why I make sure the yearly maintenance fees are paid.
> > Maybe they were just busy at the time. In a quiet week, Dave might > have had a more helpful response - who knows? I don't think he's > really entitled to expect it, though. >
Maybe, but, once again, they could have said just that. It only takes a moment to be polite and not sound like you are being ignored just because you didn't sign on for the yearly fees. It's a little thing called customer service. You never know, a different approach may have enticed him to re-up his maintenance agreement. Jim
Reply by Max March 3, 20042004-03-03
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:18:35 GMT, James Beck wrote:

>I guess I'm spoiled because I keep up with the yearly maintainance >agreements. I use the tools to make a living, so the yearly cost is >more than reasonable for the return on the investment. Their response >is a bit snooty, isn't it? I'll have to make meantion of it nest time I >call them.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable. Tech support is an expensive resource, and it makes sense to give priority to those who are actually paying for it. I doubt you'd be too happy if, when you rang up with an urgent problem, they told you you'd have to wait while they sorted out a problem with some free software for someone who didn't have a support contract. Maybe they were just busy at the time. In a quiet week, Dave might have had a more helpful response - who knows? I don't think he's really entitled to expect it, though. -- Max
Reply by James Beck March 3, 20042004-03-03
In article <40460849.2476939@News.individual.net>, iddw@hotmail.com 
says...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:20:09 GMT, James Beck > <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >I will 2nd the comment about Cosmic's support. Been using their HC05 > >compiler for years now since I heard Introl went belly up I purchased > >their HC11 product just this week. If you have any trouble with their > >product they will help you out, period. > > Just an anecdote. > > I have an older (version 4.3, ca. 2000) version of the Cosmic HC08 > compiler. It works well, and I like it. > > A few months ago, I emailed a question to them: "Will my compiler > support the MC68HC908Qxx parts, or do I need to upgrade?" Answer: > "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own > linker command files. The latest version of the compiler has these > files included. If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..." > > Excellent. Just what I wanted to know.
I have never used their supplied command files or headers so I didn't run into this problem. I have made it a habit to make templates for all of the variants I'm using so I have a basic C LNK and H files for the processors I'm using. In fact I had to go look at my Cosmic directory and I don't have any Cosmic supplied processor specific files.
> > A bit later, I emailed a bug report about one of their free, > downloadable tools that converts their debug information to P&E > format: "The cvpne utility terminates abnormally with a "no memory" > error when I define the following data in the following sections. Is > this a known problem and is there a workaround? Or is this just a bug > you need to fix?" Answer: I see your support contract has expired. > Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as > well as priority access to technical support. Let me know if you have > any questions." > > Nope, I think I got the message.
I guess I'm spoiled because I keep up with the yearly maintainance agreements. I use the tools to make a living, so the yearly cost is more than reasonable for the return on the investment. Their response is a bit snooty, isn't it? I'll have to make meantion of it nest time I call them. Jim
Reply by Pete Fenelon March 3, 20042004-03-03
Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own > linker command files. The latest version of the compiler has these > files included. If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..." > > Excellent. Just what I wanted to know. > > you need to fix?" Answer: I see your support contract has expired. > Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as > well as priority access to technical support. Let me know if you have > any questions." >
Justifiable in both cases. New functionality costs money; support costs money. Those of us who can be bothered to keep in support get very good service. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
Reply by Dave Hansen March 3, 20042004-03-03
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:20:09 GMT, James Beck
<jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

[...]

>I will 2nd the comment about Cosmic's support. Been using their HC05 >compiler for years now since I heard Introl went belly up I purchased >their HC11 product just this week. If you have any trouble with their >product they will help you out, period.
Just an anecdote. I have an older (version 4.3, ca. 2000) version of the Cosmic HC08 compiler. It works well, and I like it. A few months ago, I emailed a question to them: "Will my compiler support the MC68HC908Qxx parts, or do I need to upgrade?" Answer: "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own linker command files. The latest version of the compiler has these files included. If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..." Excellent. Just what I wanted to know. A bit later, I emailed a bug report about one of their free, downloadable tools that converts their debug information to P&E format: "The cvpne utility terminates abnormally with a "no memory" error when I define the following data in the following sections. Is this a known problem and is there a workaround? Or is this just a bug you need to fix?" Answer: I see your support contract has expired. Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as well as priority access to technical support. Let me know if you have any questions." Nope, I think I got the message. Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Reply by James Beck March 3, 20042004-03-03
In article <6rb42c.3nc.ln@fenelon.com>, pete@fenelon.com says...
> Scott <scotty_agnew@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am starting a project using Motorolas HCS12 family chip. > > Specifically > > MC9S12E64. I was wondering if anyone had some suggestions on which > > compiler suite to use? Motorola suggests Code Warrior but seems > > pricy. Any comments on > > the code warrier suite? Or which compiler should I use? > > > > IAR or Cosmic. Solid, professional compilers - and the support from the > Cosmic guys is excellent. I've always really liked Noral's debugger on > the '12. > > pete >
I will 2nd the comment about Cosmic's support. Been using their HC05 compiler for years now since I heard Introl went belly up I purchased their HC11 product just this week. If you have any trouble with their product they will help you out, period. Jim
Reply by Pete Fenelon March 3, 20042004-03-03
Scott <scotty_agnew@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I am starting a project using Motorolas HCS12 family chip. > Specifically > MC9S12E64. I was wondering if anyone had some suggestions on which > compiler suite to use? Motorola suggests Code Warrior but seems > pricy. Any comments on > the code warrier suite? Or which compiler should I use? >
IAR or Cosmic. Solid, professional compilers - and the support from the Cosmic guys is excellent. I've always really liked Noral's debugger on the '12. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
Reply by Grant Edwards March 2, 20042004-03-02
In article <7968850c.0402030800.6c61d26@posting.google.com>, Scott wrote:

> I am starting a project using Motorolas HCS12 family chip. > Specifically MC9S12E64. I was wondering if anyone had some > suggestions on which compiler suite to use?
I like GCC. I played with the HC11/HC12 version for a while (ended up choosing the H8/300 over the HC12), but it looked like it generated pretty decent code. Way, way better than the Introl HC11 compiler for which I payed thousands of dollars 10 years ago. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm sitting on my at SPEED QUEEN... To me, visi.com it's ENJOYABLE... I'm WARM... I'm VIBRATORY...
Reply by Jason Moore March 2, 20042004-03-02
Metroworks has a slick front end -I used first for Palm ages ago. ARM
ADS uses Codewarrior as I remember -that is certainly a great
endorsement.

I figure IAR will catch up with them in early 2005 though. With source
browsers and auto variable watching in the debugger -this has arrived
already for ARM and will arrive soon for MSP430

 
Jason Moore CEng
IAR UK