BX24++

Started by Georges July 9, 2003
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



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





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





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 >
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>




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 >
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>





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



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




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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>





But the 8535 doesn't support a boot-loader.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Arck [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 5:20 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [BasicX] Re: BX24++ 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



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