Hi guys,
OK finally resurected this old post, you may remember that I posted this
saying that I was looking for a freeish tool chain for the S12 for students
and hobbyists, well it is finally here. OK, I wanted a 64K solution but
after some arm twisting we have now got the free Special Edition of
Codewarrior up from 12K to 32K. You can download it here
http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Embedded/HC12/Default.htm , strangly it
doesn't apear to be clear on that page that you get 32K, but it is being
advertised on the freescale MCU home page.
To partner this we developed the hardware necessary at freegeeks, its the
TBDML
http://freegeeks.net/modules.php?name=NukeWrap&page=http://www.freegeeks.net/newwebpages/FDE/webpage.htm
we now also have the PCBs in stock in the online store
http://www.freegeeks.net/store/ .
All we need now is to get the port working for GDB, TomB, the pressure is on
;-)
Best Regards
Jim
www.freegeeks.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimstuart@jims...>
To: <68HC12@68HC...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [68HC12] Re: entry level S12 tools
> OK, I have to say that out of all the posts I
don't see a workable
> solution for the original problem. I suggest no more posts on the topic
> till I find a solution for GREATER THAN 12K for less than,,,,,,,lets say
> $50.
>
> Best Regards
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Karpicz" <karpicz@karp...>
> To: <68HC12@68HC...>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [68HC12] Re: entry level S12 tools
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You guys must have all been wealthy students, as far as I can see,
the
>>> lowest cost option is
>>>
>>> Softec Kit, say the S12C starter kit $50
>>> Imagecraft C compiler $200
>>
>>> Noice debugger $100
>> Maybe today student can't live without an real ICE? What about
"printf
>> debugging", debugging looking at what you're writing etc?
>> BTW NoICE12 code simulator (no interrupts, periferals etc) is free
for
>> ICC12 users, free CW special edition has C compiler limited to 12k +
>> debugger/simulator. If 12k is not enough for student project maybe
>> student
>> should do couple of 12k sized commercial projects and earn sume bucks
for
>> less restricted compiler? Subject gets annoying.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> $350 before you can get strated on a project, no wonder it is not
used
>>> by
>>> many hobbyists or students. This is why I am trying to find a
cheaper
>>
>> Then PICs also shouldn't be used by many hobbyists:
>> CCS C compiler 125-175$
>> ICD2 debugger/programmer 200$
>> Is it more suitable for student?
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>>> solution, if anyone can see a cheaper way then please let me
know.
>>>
>>> As for the cost of the samples, don't forget, they are free!
;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> freegeek
>>> www.freegeeks.net
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Edward Karpicz" <karpicz@karp...>
>>> To: <68HC12@68HC...>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:54 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [68HC12] Re: entry level S12 tools
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is a growing one, with HC08 and monitor mode,
debugging
>>>>> was limited but free, but now with S12, S12X and S08 the
BDM is
>>>>> obligatory*, since one of my roles is to push these
products to the
>>>>> mass market, I need to find a way to introduce these
families at very
>>>>> low cost to students and hobbyists etc.
>>>>
>>>> What could be cheaper than BDMish PK-HCS12E128 or PK-HCS12C32
SofTec
>>>> 49$
>>>> starterkits? Digikey has them for 49$/pcs but MC9S12E128 parts
(not
>>>> available at the moment but should cost +-~ like A128) are ~18$
each!
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.softecmicro.com/products.html?type=browse&title=Starter+Kits+%28PK+Series%29
>>>>
>>>> HC08 programmer is free? For HC08 monitor mode programmer you
still
>>>> need
>>>> hardware : IC (RS232 level shifters), resistors, capacitors,
maybe
>>>> USB<->RS232 dongle if you have modern PC ... How things
differ
>>>> compared
>>>> to
>>>> HC(s(x))12 BDM? BDM protocol is pretty well documented and you
just
>>>> need
>>>> an
>>>> extra MCU. Could be any of PIC/AVR/HC11/4004... and not
necessarily
>>>> more
>>>> expensive than single MAX232. If there was no low frequency
limit for
>>>> flash programming you could program your HCxx12 directly via
LPT port.
>>>>
>>>> Edward
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * I am aware of the pcbug11 type debugger for the S12 but
am not a
>>>>> supporter of this since the free samples don't come
with this
>>>>> programmed in and it seems crazy to push this when the BDM
is
>>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>> freegeek (Jim)
>>>>> www.freegeeks.net
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In 68HC12@68HC..., Oliver Thamm
<othamm_yahgrp@h...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as far as I am concerned, on internet mailing lists it
is common
>>>>>> "netiquette" to use real names, not pseudos.
In the end, this one
>>>>> here is
>>>>>> a small community of specialists - not the
25-zillion-member "PC
>>>>>> programming group". Any discussion about this
issue is welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding you Q:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think, the most important (and difficult) task is to
explain to a
>>>>>> student that 20 hours of that student's life time
is worth spending
>>>>> 100
>>>>>> bucks for a tool. Wasting two days for looking for a
tool available
>>>>> for
>>>>>> half the money could turn out being a bad deal. IOW:
time is money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I am not aware of a D60 derivative within the S12
line?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy HCS12ing!
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Guys,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Any suggestions on how a hobbyist/student would go
about
>>>>> developing with a S12D60 (or any other S12).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Desire,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > C development without code size restriction
>>>>>> > High level debugging using BDM
>>>>>> > Tool cost target, $20.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Given that the material costs of a BDM cable must
be sub $20, and
>>>>> lets say is built by the hobbyist/student. I just need to
work out
>>>>> the design of the cable/tool, understand the debugging
command
>>>>> interface protocol and then find the Compiler and debugger
for free.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Any suggestions
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > freegeek
>>>>>> > www.freegeek.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: entry level S12 tools
Started by ●April 7, 2005
Reply by ●April 7, 20052005-04-07
Jim, your arm twisting may just mean less and less support for the
Motorola/Freescale chips. Remember Introl? Motorola used to have the most
3rd party support and now they are doing the darnest to kill off
"competitions." At some points, Freescale will have to break out in their
financial report how much money the Metrowerks division is or is not making.
At 02:43 PM 4/7/2005, jimstuart@jims... wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>OK finally resurected this old post, you may remember that I posted this
>saying that I was looking for a freeish tool chain for the S12 for students
>and hobbyists, well it is finally here. OK, I wanted a 64K solution but
>after some arm twisting we have now got the free Special Edition of
>Codewarrior up from 12K to 32K. You can download it here
>http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Embedded/HC12/Default.htm , strangly it
>doesn't apear to be clear on that page that you get 32K, but it is being
>advertised on the freescale MCU home page.
>
>To partner this we developed the hardware necessary at freegeeks, its the
>TBDML
>http://freegeeks.net/modules.php?name=NukeWrap&page=http://www.freegeeks.net/newwebpages/FDE/webpage.htm
>
>we now also have the PCBs in stock in the online store
>http://www.freegeeks.net/store/ .
>
>All we need now is to get the port working for GDB, TomB, the pressure is on
>;-)
>
>Best Regards
>Jim
>www.freegeeks.net
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
Motorola/Freescale chips. Remember Introl? Motorola used to have the most
3rd party support and now they are doing the darnest to kill off
"competitions." At some points, Freescale will have to break out in their
financial report how much money the Metrowerks division is or is not making.
At 02:43 PM 4/7/2005, jimstuart@jims... wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>OK finally resurected this old post, you may remember that I posted this
>saying that I was looking for a freeish tool chain for the S12 for students
>and hobbyists, well it is finally here. OK, I wanted a 64K solution but
>after some arm twisting we have now got the free Special Edition of
>Codewarrior up from 12K to 32K. You can download it here
>http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Embedded/HC12/Default.htm , strangly it
>doesn't apear to be clear on that page that you get 32K, but it is being
>advertised on the freescale MCU home page.
>
>To partner this we developed the hardware necessary at freegeeks, its the
>TBDML
>http://freegeeks.net/modules.php?name=NukeWrap&page=http://www.freegeeks.net/newwebpages/FDE/webpage.htm
>
>we now also have the PCBs in stock in the online store
>http://www.freegeeks.net/store/ .
>
>All we need now is to get the port working for GDB, TomB, the pressure is on
>;-)
>
>Best Regards
>Jim
>www.freegeeks.net
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
Richard <richard-lists@rich...> wrote:
> Jim, your arm twisting may just mean less and less support for the
> Motorola/Freescale chips. Remember Introl? Motorola used to have the most
which free Compiler made Introl going out of business?
Richard Pennington didn't answer my inquiry (and some other people's
questions) 2001 and the last compiler release was 1999/2000. I don't
remember more than MCUez (the Hiware Assembler with debugger) at this
time. Richard seemingly had othe reasons, maybe his job at GE
medical?
Hi-Tech also decided not to make a HC12 compiler long before a free
"Motorola sponsored" compiler was available. Likely we had bought it
because we already have their HC11 compiler.
Who remains?
And _why_ did Introl and Hi-Tech really stop Motorola development?
> 3rd party support and now they are doing the darnest to kill off
> "competitions." At some points, Freescale will have to break out in their
> financial report how much money the Metrowerks division is or is not making.
The want to sell chips. In the automotove market (where I guess most
of the HCS12 silicon goes), neither your, nor a free 32K Metrowerks
compiler is important. And very likely it is also not important
whether some engineer had played with the processor family before.
For other markets, it could be very useful to provide a cheap entry
level toolchain. Look how many students or hobbyists use the HCS12
and compare it to the number of ARM, AVR and PIC projects. They did
so because there is a low budget toolchain. And in smaller companies,
this experience _will_ have influence on the processor selection.
Whether they stay later with the free CW, or use GCC, or buy ICC,
Cosmic or a full CW for commercial development is the question, but
no more relevant for Freescale.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen
> Jim, your arm twisting may just mean less and less support for the
> Motorola/Freescale chips. Remember Introl? Motorola used to have the most
which free Compiler made Introl going out of business?
Richard Pennington didn't answer my inquiry (and some other people's
questions) 2001 and the last compiler release was 1999/2000. I don't
remember more than MCUez (the Hiware Assembler with debugger) at this
time. Richard seemingly had othe reasons, maybe his job at GE
medical?
Hi-Tech also decided not to make a HC12 compiler long before a free
"Motorola sponsored" compiler was available. Likely we had bought it
because we already have their HC11 compiler.
Who remains?
And _why_ did Introl and Hi-Tech really stop Motorola development?
> 3rd party support and now they are doing the darnest to kill off
> "competitions." At some points, Freescale will have to break out in their
> financial report how much money the Metrowerks division is or is not making.
The want to sell chips. In the automotove market (where I guess most
of the HCS12 silicon goes), neither your, nor a free 32K Metrowerks
compiler is important. And very likely it is also not important
whether some engineer had played with the processor family before.
For other markets, it could be very useful to provide a cheap entry
level toolchain. Look how many students or hobbyists use the HCS12
and compare it to the number of ARM, AVR and PIC projects. They did
so because there is a low budget toolchain. And in smaller companies,
this experience _will_ have influence on the processor selection.
Whether they stay later with the free CW, or use GCC, or buy ICC,
Cosmic or a full CW for commercial development is the question, but
no more relevant for Freescale.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
At 11:51 PM 4/7/2005, Oliver Betz wrote:
>...
Oliver, obviously we have a difference of opinions. There is no need to
hash them out :-) I think people can draw their own conclusions...
>For other markets, it could be very useful to provide a cheap entry
>level toolchain. Look how many students or hobbyists use the HCS12
>and compare it to the number of ARM, AVR and PIC projects. They did
>so because there is a low budget toolchain. And in smaller companies,
>this experience _will_ have influence on the processor selection.
>
>Whether they stay later with the free CW, or use GCC, or buy ICC,
>Cosmic or a full CW for commercial development is the question, but
>no more relevant for Freescale.
None? How many people work at Metrowerks? How much money is Metrowerks
making or losing? If you are a shareholder in Freescale, wouldn't you like
to know? One reasons that Freescale was spun out was the SPS kept losing
money for the rest of Motorola. Now that it is free, may be their financial
position of the SW portion would be more out in the clear? If engineers
cannot get choices for their tools, may be they would consider chips other
than Freescale's? Would that eventually affect their bottom line? This is
exactly the reason how Microchip shot from nowhere to become #2 in terms of
MCU volume. So are you saying this is a good strategy for Freecale to follow?
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
>...
Oliver, obviously we have a difference of opinions. There is no need to
hash them out :-) I think people can draw their own conclusions...
>For other markets, it could be very useful to provide a cheap entry
>level toolchain. Look how many students or hobbyists use the HCS12
>and compare it to the number of ARM, AVR and PIC projects. They did
>so because there is a low budget toolchain. And in smaller companies,
>this experience _will_ have influence on the processor selection.
>
>Whether they stay later with the free CW, or use GCC, or buy ICC,
>Cosmic or a full CW for commercial development is the question, but
>no more relevant for Freescale.
None? How many people work at Metrowerks? How much money is Metrowerks
making or losing? If you are a shareholder in Freescale, wouldn't you like
to know? One reasons that Freescale was spun out was the SPS kept losing
money for the rest of Motorola. Now that it is free, may be their financial
position of the SW portion would be more out in the clear? If engineers
cannot get choices for their tools, may be they would consider chips other
than Freescale's? Would that eventually affect their bottom line? This is
exactly the reason how Microchip shot from nowhere to become #2 in terms of
MCU volume. So are you saying this is a good strategy for Freecale to follow?
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
Richard <richard-lists@rich...> wrote:
> >...
>
> Oliver, obviously we have a difference of opinions. There is no need to
> hash them out :-) I think people can draw their own conclusions...
this seems to be a misunderstanding. I didn't understand what you
wanted to express mentioning Introl, so I asked for explanation. I
can't "draw my conclusion" but I'm still curious.
And please keep in mind that English is not my native language, I was
not able to understand even the wording of other parts of your mail
completely.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen
> >...
>
> Oliver, obviously we have a difference of opinions. There is no need to
> hash them out :-) I think people can draw their own conclusions...
this seems to be a misunderstanding. I didn't understand what you
wanted to express mentioning Introl, so I asked for explanation. I
can't "draw my conclusion" but I'm still curious.
And please keep in mind that English is not my native language, I was
not able to understand even the wording of other parts of your mail
completely.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
At 07:34 AM 4/8/2005, Oliver Betz wrote:
>Richard <richard-lists@rich...> wrote:
>
> > >...
> >
> > Oliver, obviously we have a difference of opinions. There is no need to
> > hash them out :-) I think people can draw their own conclusions...
>
>this seems to be a misunderstanding. I didn't understand what you
>wanted to express mentioning Introl, so I asked for explanation. I
>can't "draw my conclusion" but I'm still curious.
Sorry Oliver, I didn't mean disrespect.
What I meant is that no one except Introl and Hi Tech themselves would know
exactly why they did what they did. However, one factor is clearly that
they weren't or they thought they would not be making enough money in the
market. This gets back to my original rants: what purpose does it serve for
Motorola to ultimately purchase Metrowerks and then Hiware, and what
purpose does it serve that MW is aggressively releasing free compilers?
Obviously, some people would rejoice that they no longer have to pay
anything to get a usable compiler. Some people would argue that I am just
having sour grapes. Perhaps, but I am just saying that with the aggressive
approach that MW is taking, it is unlikely there will be too many
competitors to MW left before long. I'm sure MW has legions of fans too so
it's not a bad thing for them, and I'm sure some people would say that this
just means that any competitors would have to react smartly. Well, one way
to react is to not so actively supporting companies that are so
anti-competitive vis-a-vis their 3rd party vendors. What this means is that
ultimately users would be limited in choices. Lets go back to the HC11
days, you have Cosmic compiler that is fairly well regarded. You have
Introl which has been in business also for ~20 years and they have support
for all sort of Unixes in addition to Windows/DOS. You have us, holding the
low end and ease of use. You have IAR, Hi Tech, plus a few others given the
users lots of choices. As a customer, you select the product that works
best for you. Choices are always good.
Moving to HC12, most of the vendors followed along and release HC12
compilers. Then came the Metrowerks acquisition. No big deal in some sense.
We all understand the Motorola must assure compiler support for some of
their exotic high end chips. After all, who else would jump to support say
MCore when it is new (and boy is it a good thing that no one else wastes
their time on it)? Then came the Hiware acquisition. That certainly doesn't
make as much sense. I believe the rationale is mainly that they must have a
cheap compiler especially for the HC08 etc. to break into the Asian market.
Well fine, I am sure it made sense to the Motorola execs and heck, it's
their money.
Now it comes to extremely aggressive free compilers. That may be great for
users initially, it definitely put other 3rd party vendors at competitive
disadvantages. As I said before, we will continue to support the S12, the
08 and even the aging HC11, but it will certainly gives us a second thought
about supporting any new Freescale chips. Why shouldn't we bother when
money can be made easier elsewhere? Occasionally, people inquire about the
DSP56800 chip support, but why should we bother?
>And please keep in mind that English is not my native language, I was
>not able to understand even the wording of other parts of your mail
>completely.
No one makes money from free compilers. I worked at HP and DEC where we had
a relatively large compiler teams. The cost of running the groups were
always justified not so much by compiler sales per se, but for the ultimate
chip sales. Perhaps Freescale will do that with respect to the Metrowerks
division. OTOH, I believe Freescale business is significantly smaller than
the DEC Alpha or the HP PA-RISC businesses. At some point, the shareholders
may like to know exactly the cost and benefit of having a compiler
division. All I am saying is that people who rejoice at "free" compilers
need to consider the consequences. Look at the PIC16. No one can argue too
much that it wins because it's a nice architecture, but it has compiler
support ranging from free/$50 to the high end (in prices anyway). Users
have lots of choices and the market grows.
Anycase, enough of my ranting. I will stop before I get kicked off the
mailing list again :-)
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
>Richard <richard-lists@rich...> wrote:
>
> > >...
> >
> > Oliver, obviously we have a difference of opinions. There is no need to
> > hash them out :-) I think people can draw their own conclusions...
>
>this seems to be a misunderstanding. I didn't understand what you
>wanted to express mentioning Introl, so I asked for explanation. I
>can't "draw my conclusion" but I'm still curious.
Sorry Oliver, I didn't mean disrespect.
What I meant is that no one except Introl and Hi Tech themselves would know
exactly why they did what they did. However, one factor is clearly that
they weren't or they thought they would not be making enough money in the
market. This gets back to my original rants: what purpose does it serve for
Motorola to ultimately purchase Metrowerks and then Hiware, and what
purpose does it serve that MW is aggressively releasing free compilers?
Obviously, some people would rejoice that they no longer have to pay
anything to get a usable compiler. Some people would argue that I am just
having sour grapes. Perhaps, but I am just saying that with the aggressive
approach that MW is taking, it is unlikely there will be too many
competitors to MW left before long. I'm sure MW has legions of fans too so
it's not a bad thing for them, and I'm sure some people would say that this
just means that any competitors would have to react smartly. Well, one way
to react is to not so actively supporting companies that are so
anti-competitive vis-a-vis their 3rd party vendors. What this means is that
ultimately users would be limited in choices. Lets go back to the HC11
days, you have Cosmic compiler that is fairly well regarded. You have
Introl which has been in business also for ~20 years and they have support
for all sort of Unixes in addition to Windows/DOS. You have us, holding the
low end and ease of use. You have IAR, Hi Tech, plus a few others given the
users lots of choices. As a customer, you select the product that works
best for you. Choices are always good.
Moving to HC12, most of the vendors followed along and release HC12
compilers. Then came the Metrowerks acquisition. No big deal in some sense.
We all understand the Motorola must assure compiler support for some of
their exotic high end chips. After all, who else would jump to support say
MCore when it is new (and boy is it a good thing that no one else wastes
their time on it)? Then came the Hiware acquisition. That certainly doesn't
make as much sense. I believe the rationale is mainly that they must have a
cheap compiler especially for the HC08 etc. to break into the Asian market.
Well fine, I am sure it made sense to the Motorola execs and heck, it's
their money.
Now it comes to extremely aggressive free compilers. That may be great for
users initially, it definitely put other 3rd party vendors at competitive
disadvantages. As I said before, we will continue to support the S12, the
08 and even the aging HC11, but it will certainly gives us a second thought
about supporting any new Freescale chips. Why shouldn't we bother when
money can be made easier elsewhere? Occasionally, people inquire about the
DSP56800 chip support, but why should we bother?
>And please keep in mind that English is not my native language, I was
>not able to understand even the wording of other parts of your mail
>completely.
No one makes money from free compilers. I worked at HP and DEC where we had
a relatively large compiler teams. The cost of running the groups were
always justified not so much by compiler sales per se, but for the ultimate
chip sales. Perhaps Freescale will do that with respect to the Metrowerks
division. OTOH, I believe Freescale business is significantly smaller than
the DEC Alpha or the HP PA-RISC businesses. At some point, the shareholders
may like to know exactly the cost and benefit of having a compiler
division. All I am saying is that people who rejoice at "free" compilers
need to consider the consequences. Look at the PIC16. No one can argue too
much that it wins because it's a nice architecture, but it has compiler
support ranging from free/$50 to the high end (in prices anyway). Users
have lots of choices and the market grows.
Anycase, enough of my ranting. I will stop before I get kicked off the
mailing list again :-)
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
Richard <richard-lists@rich...> wrote:
[...]
> What I meant is that no one except Introl and Hi Tech themselves would know
> exactly why they did what they did. However, one factor is clearly that
> they weren't or they thought they would not be making enough money in the
Right. But not because of free alternatives, but because the HC12 was
not so widespread as the HC11, especially in the "small business"
segment.
IIRC, even when there were only 2000$ alternatives (Cosmic and
Hiware), you sold not enough HC12 compilers to justify a lot of work
for improvements.
So for me the interesting question is: why didn't HC11 users switch
to the HC12? Maybe because there were not so many toolchains
available (also BDM interfaces, we used first the SDI). I don't know.
> market. This gets back to my original rants: what purpose does it serve for
> Motorola to ultimately purchase Metrowerks and then Hiware, and what
> purpose does it serve that MW is aggressively releasing free compilers?
We can only guess, but...
[...big snip...]
> No one makes money from free compilers. I worked at HP and DEC where we had
> a relatively large compiler teams. The cost of running the groups were
> always justified not so much by compiler sales per se, but for the ultimate
> chip sales. Perhaps Freescale will do that with respect to the Metrowerks
> division. OTOH, I believe Freescale business is significantly smaller than
That's IMO a plausible explanation.
> the DEC Alpha or the HP PA-RISC businesses. At some point, the shareholders
> may like to know exactly the cost and benefit of having a compiler
> division. All I am saying is that people who rejoice at "free" compilers
> need to consider the consequences. Look at the PIC16. No one can argue too
> much that it wins because it's a nice architecture, but it has compiler
> support ranging from free/$50 to the high end (in prices anyway). Users
> have lots of choices and the market grows.
PICs were widespread even when there were no good compilers. One
reason might be that Microchip offered (physically) _small_
derivatives. There was no small HC11, so we used a PIC 16C71
(shudder) in a product where the board had to be 17mm "wide". We went
back to the 68HC908JK3 in the meantime.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen
[...]
> What I meant is that no one except Introl and Hi Tech themselves would know
> exactly why they did what they did. However, one factor is clearly that
> they weren't or they thought they would not be making enough money in the
Right. But not because of free alternatives, but because the HC12 was
not so widespread as the HC11, especially in the "small business"
segment.
IIRC, even when there were only 2000$ alternatives (Cosmic and
Hiware), you sold not enough HC12 compilers to justify a lot of work
for improvements.
So for me the interesting question is: why didn't HC11 users switch
to the HC12? Maybe because there were not so many toolchains
available (also BDM interfaces, we used first the SDI). I don't know.
> market. This gets back to my original rants: what purpose does it serve for
> Motorola to ultimately purchase Metrowerks and then Hiware, and what
> purpose does it serve that MW is aggressively releasing free compilers?
We can only guess, but...
[...big snip...]
> No one makes money from free compilers. I worked at HP and DEC where we had
> a relatively large compiler teams. The cost of running the groups were
> always justified not so much by compiler sales per se, but for the ultimate
> chip sales. Perhaps Freescale will do that with respect to the Metrowerks
> division. OTOH, I believe Freescale business is significantly smaller than
That's IMO a plausible explanation.
> the DEC Alpha or the HP PA-RISC businesses. At some point, the shareholders
> may like to know exactly the cost and benefit of having a compiler
> division. All I am saying is that people who rejoice at "free" compilers
> need to consider the consequences. Look at the PIC16. No one can argue too
> much that it wins because it's a nice architecture, but it has compiler
> support ranging from free/$50 to the high end (in prices anyway). Users
> have lots of choices and the market grows.
PICs were widespread even when there were no good compilers. One
reason might be that Microchip offered (physically) _small_
derivatives. There was no small HC11, so we used a PIC 16C71
(shudder) in a product where the board had to be 17mm "wide". We went
back to the 68HC908JK3 in the meantime.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
--- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Oliver Betz" <list_ob@g...> wrote:
Hi Oliver,
> So for me the interesting question is: why didn't HC11 users switch
> to the HC12?
The step from HC11 or other through hole mount chips to surface mount is a rather big one, that keeps coming through loud and clear on the Flex and other hobby boards.
It stops most hobbyist cold and even small companies like mine, with an ageing owner that can't even see the pins let alone solder them, have a lot of trepidations and only switch when it becomes unavoidable.
Even on a tight budget it cost a few thousand dollars in tools and retraining people, even today when we have installed over 500 units there is still a fair amount of rework due to the hand soldering failing on these very small pins.
OTOH the chip has been very reliable and apart from the ongoing soldering issues it's easy to work with, no more owner burning of Eproms because he is the only one that knows how to operate the complicated burner software, or spending several hours finding out why it won't start up.
We ended up using NoIce, an excellent and easy to work with bit of software that does many things very well, from development to small scale production trouble shooting and installing the software.
Overall my view is that the uptake would have been a lot quicker if the chip had some low cost student, hobby and prototype friendly versions, a through hole type for example with reduced pin numbers and some minimal cost sofware, most of such small projects don't need a zillion ports or high end compilers/assemblers.
Ah well, just my ramble for the day. Regards,
Theo
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
Hi all,
In my school days, in the BSEE studies, I first worked on Motorola
microprocessors using the MEK6802-D5
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&cP4
but these tools were provided by my college. We paid a lab fee to work in
the microprocessor lab. I have been out of school many years. Today students
are expected to actually buy their own copies of compilers, and to buy their
own boards, for undergraduate classwork? For a student to carry that burden,
surely tuition must cost less $$$ these days...
After school, I found work at a company run by one of those "old guys",
where "digital" meant MC14000-series CMOS run from +15V, or discrete
transistors and diodes switching in a 12V domain. I was free to select,
introduce, and design-in a micro family. I integrated HC11s across our whole
product range, mostly 68HC11F1s and a few 68HC11E9 or 68HC711E9 (windowed).
When the HC12 was introduced, I wanted to switch over to the it. My boss
resisted, until he heard one of the rumors that the HC11 was about to be
discontinued (that was about 1997). So we went over to the HC12 in all our
new products.
We used the ImageCraft compiler beginning in about 1994, and used ICC12 when
we moved to the HC12. I had some exposure to the CodeWarrior tools a few
years ago. Based on what I saw of CW, I would still pay 2x what ICC costs,
even if CW is free. This is not a paid endorsement 8^). I'd rather spend
time writing and compiling code than figuring out how to get the compiler
out of my way.
Regards
Carl >From: "theobee00" <yahoodump2@yaho...>
>Reply-To: 68HC12@68HC...
>To: 68HC12@68HC...
>Subject: [68HC12] Re: entry level S12 tools
>Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:27:12 -0000 ...
...
> > So for me the interesting question is: why didn't HC11 users switch
> > to the HC12?
>
>The step from HC11 or other through hole mount chips to surface mount is a
>rather big one, that keeps coming through loud and clear on the Flex and
>other hobby boards.
In my school days, in the BSEE studies, I first worked on Motorola
microprocessors using the MEK6802-D5
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&cP4
but these tools were provided by my college. We paid a lab fee to work in
the microprocessor lab. I have been out of school many years. Today students
are expected to actually buy their own copies of compilers, and to buy their
own boards, for undergraduate classwork? For a student to carry that burden,
surely tuition must cost less $$$ these days...
After school, I found work at a company run by one of those "old guys",
where "digital" meant MC14000-series CMOS run from +15V, or discrete
transistors and diodes switching in a 12V domain. I was free to select,
introduce, and design-in a micro family. I integrated HC11s across our whole
product range, mostly 68HC11F1s and a few 68HC11E9 or 68HC711E9 (windowed).
When the HC12 was introduced, I wanted to switch over to the it. My boss
resisted, until he heard one of the rumors that the HC11 was about to be
discontinued (that was about 1997). So we went over to the HC12 in all our
new products.
We used the ImageCraft compiler beginning in about 1994, and used ICC12 when
we moved to the HC12. I had some exposure to the CodeWarrior tools a few
years ago. Based on what I saw of CW, I would still pay 2x what ICC costs,
even if CW is free. This is not a paid endorsement 8^). I'd rather spend
time writing and compiling code than figuring out how to get the compiler
out of my way.
Regards
Carl >From: "theobee00" <yahoodump2@yaho...>
>Reply-To: 68HC12@68HC...
>To: 68HC12@68HC...
>Subject: [68HC12] Re: entry level S12 tools
>Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:27:12 -0000 ...
...
> > So for me the interesting question is: why didn't HC11 users switch
> > to the HC12?
>
>The step from HC11 or other through hole mount chips to surface mount is a
>rather big one, that keeps coming through loud and clear on the Flex and
>other hobby boards.
Reply by ●April 8, 20052005-04-08
At 10:18 AM 4/8/2005, Oliver Betz wrote:
> > What I meant is that no one except Introl and Hi Tech themselves would
> know
> > exactly why they did what they did. However, one factor is clearly that
> > they weren't or they thought they would not be making enough money in the
>
>Right. But not because of free alternatives, but because the HC12 was
>not so widespread as the HC11, especially in the "small business"
>segment.
No one is debating that the "free" alternatives are a factor "way back
when" because CW didn't aggressively push out free compilers until
yesterday and now. However, the writing is on the wall - Motorola purchased
MW, MW purchased Hiware. As a business person, it's easy to see which way
the wind is going to blow.
>IIRC, even when there were only 2000$ alternatives (Cosmic and
>Hiware), you sold not enough HC12 compilers to justify a lot of work
>for improvements.
I believe we communicated a bit about this. This is/was one of the factors.
The ICC12 goes up and down like a seasaw. Now it turns out the over all the
years, it is a fairly good consistent seller and we will be moving to V7 in
the future to address of some its shortcoming. However, it gets back to,
when will the next shoe drop? What if CW put out a 64K free version? When
you come right down to it, the Freescale market is becoming a lot more
risky than it ought to be.
Well, as I said, our opinions differ. You have a clear idea what's
happening. I see things differently, perhaps because I am in the 3rd party
vendor business. No need for either of us to hash this out ad infinitum. So
this is the last of my post on this.
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
> > What I meant is that no one except Introl and Hi Tech themselves would
> know
> > exactly why they did what they did. However, one factor is clearly that
> > they weren't or they thought they would not be making enough money in the
>
>Right. But not because of free alternatives, but because the HC12 was
>not so widespread as the HC11, especially in the "small business"
>segment.
No one is debating that the "free" alternatives are a factor "way back
when" because CW didn't aggressively push out free compilers until
yesterday and now. However, the writing is on the wall - Motorola purchased
MW, MW purchased Hiware. As a business person, it's easy to see which way
the wind is going to blow.
>IIRC, even when there were only 2000$ alternatives (Cosmic and
>Hiware), you sold not enough HC12 compilers to justify a lot of work
>for improvements.
I believe we communicated a bit about this. This is/was one of the factors.
The ICC12 goes up and down like a seasaw. Now it turns out the over all the
years, it is a fairly good consistent seller and we will be moving to V7 in
the future to address of some its shortcoming. However, it gets back to,
when will the next shoe drop? What if CW put out a 64K free version? When
you come right down to it, the Freescale market is becoming a lot more
risky than it ought to be.
Well, as I said, our opinions differ. You have a clear idea what's
happening. I see things differently, perhaps because I am in the 3rd party
vendor business. No need for either of us to hash this out ad infinitum. So
this is the last of my post on this.
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard at imagecraft.com)
