On Jan 18, 10:28=A0am, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...@seen.com> wrote:> .... > > =A0The support person I was in contact with told > > me "we cannot send you any free samples as the part is too > > expensive, and we cannot sell you that small a quantity". > > "We can't discharge you unless you are insane. > You must file the paperwork declaring your insanity. > If you file the paperwork, you must be sane." > > (apologies to Mr. Heller)Oh I am sure he will be glad up there his readers are quoting him :-). Have not reread that for ages, can do it again already, I guess. Thanks for reminding me about it :-). Dimiter
Opinions re: MCU vendors
Started by ●January 17, 2010
Reply by ●January 18, 20102010-01-18
Reply by ●January 18, 20102010-01-18
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:08:28 -0800 (PST), Didi <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:>On Jan 18, 3:12�pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote: >> ... >> Mainly, I like them for their business model and the quality >> of their technical support personnel (at least, those I've >> experienced in the past.) > >Well they have to be doing _something_ right :-).They are, no question.>But the characteristics you list are at the bottom of my >list, if they make it there at all, that is.Different strokes, I suppose.>IOW, I care about the substance, and I would live with a >less pretty envelope.I consider their business model to _be_ substance. And their micros are good besides -- ignoring the instruction set, of course. I think the _only_ complaint I've heard about them here is the instruction set. I'd add that their older compiler tools are problematic and not as good as they should have been, but I don't want to undermine my own points. ;)>> People complain bitterly about the instruction sets. �And for >> the older processors, you bet. �A naked cpu, if ever there >> was one. �But I never really count that high on my list of >> worries. > >It is not just the instruction set, I remember almost 20 years >ago I was asked to consider them. It was so twisted and awkward >(at the time I had 68HC11E9 for MCU purposes and an MC68340 for >the "larger" things) that I have not bothered to look at them >to this day (just as I don't look much at x86).All in the eye. The 80386 target (short-stepped with the 80286, and not so well) was actually drawn out of considering the old 1960's Multix project. Quite a tour-de-force. So much so, in fact, that no one could consider building the thing in a practical way until much, much later. But the ideas are sweeping, from a theoretical perspective. I'm amazed they tried to bite it off, frankly. The world of software wasn't in any way ready for it and the bridging through a DOS world was a bit of a disaster, too. Windows was useless until it got to the Win386 edition and even then wasn't all that good -- many reasons. And we all suffered from poor implementation on top. Yeah. I liked the 68HC11 and used a few. (Loved the 88k. But that's a different world.) I liked the TMS9900 instruction set, too. Motorola was expensive for me at the time and they also set up some highish barriers, in various ways including toolset costs and parts costs, so they didn't get used as much as they might have. One instrument, only.> BTW, both Motorola parts I mentioned (had chosen >back then) are also still in production. Of course I am and will >be praying they do similarly with their newer products >I have used... :-) . >What an anti-utopic world it would be, just x86 and PIC - brr... >The bad news is, things seem to be going antiutopic overall faster >than I could afford to not care about it .... :-).Well, I'm very glad for the variety. There is no "one size fits all" as your own testimony shows. And it is very good to have multi-players out there so that each of us can find a better fit to our circumstances. Jon
Reply by ●January 18, 20102010-01-18
On Jan 18, 7:28=A0pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:> ... > ...=A0Motorola was expensive for me at the > time and they also set up some highish barriers, in various > ways including toolset costs and parts costs, so they didn't > get used as much as they might have. =A0One instrument, only.I have been creating/supporting my own toolchain because back then buying one was simply out of question. While it has been a huge effort over the years, it was also rewarding and I am glad I went this way. BTW, I am still independent when it comes to toolchains (with the obvious variety limitation, I support power, 68k, 68xx, TI 54xx and that's about all).> Well, I'm very glad for the variety. =A0There is no "one size > fits all" as your own testimony shows. =A0And it is very good > to have multi-players out there so that each of us can find a > better fit to our circumstances.No doubt I am glad about the variety, too. Let's just hope we have it for another while (while we last at least :-) ). Dimiter
Reply by ●January 19, 20102010-01-19
On 01/19/2010 07:41 AM, Jon Kirwan wrote:> Ah. On this last point, I'll make a side comment. Both TI's > MSP430 line and Microchip's PIC line(s) have silicon bugs. > The big difference I see between them is that Microchip > _fixes_ their silicon bugs. You can see that in the > subsequent errata sheets on steppings of their parts. While > TI_never_ seems to fix theirs. Simply documents them. Now > this isn't hard and fast, as I haven't done an exhaustive > evaluation across all the various instances at both > companies. But on the parts I've used from each, it's the > case.When it comes to Microchip PIC lines. The experience I had with them wasn't very satisfactory. One part was one of their PIC32 parts. 2-3 years after a part was released and 5 or 6 revisions later, it still didn't meet anywhere near the specs published for the internals A-D converters , yet they were still advertised with the bogus specs. I've had other problems with other parts of theirs as well. Furthermore whilst they do fix some bugs , they keep producing the buggy versions and shipping them years after they've fixed them so it's pot luck whether you get the good or bad versions. I've got a few simple requirements of a vendor. I want them to meet their own commitments and that includes supplying a quality product and not an inferior version years after they've fixed some bugs in the good version. If they make a mistake it should be on their dime and not on mine. If they won't put it on their dimes voluntarily then I won't give them my dimes.
Reply by ●January 19, 20102010-01-19
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:27:35 +1100, Nicholas King <ze@zerandconsulting.com> wrote:>On 01/19/2010 07:41 AM, Jon Kirwan wrote: >> Ah. On this last point, I'll make a side comment. Both TI's >> MSP430 line and Microchip's PIC line(s) have silicon bugs. >> The big difference I see between them is that Microchip >> _fixes_ their silicon bugs. You can see that in the >> subsequent errata sheets on steppings of their parts. While >> TI_never_ seems to fix theirs. Simply documents them. Now >> this isn't hard and fast, as I haven't done an exhaustive >> evaluation across all the various instances at both >> companies. But on the parts I've used from each, it's the >> case. >When it comes to Microchip PIC lines. The experience I had with them >wasn't very satisfactory. One part was one of their PIC32 parts.I've never used the PIC32, so that may explain some of our different experiences.>2-3 >years after a part was released and 5 or 6 revisions later, it still >didn't meet anywhere near the specs published for the internals A-D >converters , yet they were still advertised with the bogus specs.Sounds bad.>I've had other problems with other parts of theirs as well. Furthermore >whilst they do fix some bugs , they keep producing the buggy versions >and shipping them years after they've fixed them so it's pot luck >whether you get the good or bad versions.So far, my experience has been positive in that regard. But I accept your experiences, too.>I've got a few simple requirements of a vendor. I want them to meet >their own commitments and that includes supplying a quality product and >not an inferior version years after they've fixed some bugs in the good >version. If they make a mistake it should be on their dime and not on >mine. If they won't put it on their dimes voluntarily then I won't give >them my dimes.I still haven't found an alternative nearly as consistent in their support of old tools and cpus. I'm very interested in hearing about other companies, where there is a few decades' experience behind it, that do anywhere near as well. I'd like to have some good alternatives. Jon
Reply by ●February 22, 20102010-02-22
"D Yuniskis" wrote...>> I like this one. What sort of commitments are you talking about? > > Wanna buy a Z380? :> >> I.e., I expect a vendor to cater to a (known) bigger client > more promptly (allocation, etc.) than a small fish. But, I > expect him to meet those commitments (that *he* is defining!) > equally.But, very often, that small fish that was snubbed by the vendor yesterday will work for a huge fish tomorrow, and he will remember the snub. This happens a lot - a LOT! I've seen it four times in my career. We hired a new VP of Engineering that used to work for a small company that got screwed royally, then ignored by a MCU vendor. He now works for us, and we are massive numbers out the door each year. That same MCU vendor kissed our VP's ass and the vendor is frantically parachuting high-level executives into our office. But the new VP is determined to remove all that vendor's MCUs from all our designs. TI, Freescale, and Zilog don't understand that this can happen. Microchip does.
Reply by ●February 22, 20102010-02-22
Peter Seldon wrote:> "D Yuniskis" wrote... > >>> I like this one. What sort of commitments are you talking about? >> Wanna buy a Z380? :> >> > >> I.e., I expect a vendor to cater to a (known) bigger client >> more promptly (allocation, etc.) than a small fish. But, I >> expect him to meet those commitments (that *he* is defining!) >> equally. > > But, very often, that small fish that was snubbed by the vendor yesterday will work for > a huge fish tomorrow, and he will remember the snub. > > This happens a lot - a LOT! I've seen it four times in my career. > > We hired a new VP of Engineering that used to work for a small company that got screwed > royally, then ignored by a MCU vendor. He now works for us, and we are massive numbers > out the door each year. > > That same MCU vendor kissed our VP's ass and the vendor is frantically parachuting > high-level executives into our office. But the new VP is determined to remove all that > vendor's MCUs from all our designs. > > TI, Freescale, and Zilog don't understand that this can happen. Microchip does.Motorola understood -- they were very nice to me when I was a grad student looking for qty 1 parts, and when I was a fresh engineer looking for 100 or so of a part that was on allocation to Ford*. But when they turned into FreeFall Semiconductor, they lost that. * I will cherish that conversation forever: "I need these parts, I designed them in, trusting you to come through, and now my Whole Company Will Die if you don't sell me some!" "I sympathize with your plight, sir, but Ford needs 10000 of those next month, and we just don't have enough for them, even -- and they're FORD!" "10000?!? I just need 100 for a whole YEAR! (snivel, snivel)" "Oh, 100? They'll never notice (ticki ticki tap) -- there you are, 100 on the way!". They turned from my Favorite Semiconductor Company to my Very Favorite Ever Semiconductor Company that day -- then they went and spun the whole division off... -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●February 22, 20102010-02-22
"Tim Wescott" wrote...> Peter Seldon wrote: >> "D Yuniskis" wrote... >> >>>> I like this one. What sort of commitments are you talking about? >>> Wanna buy a Z380? :> >>> >> >>> I.e., I expect a vendor to cater to a (known) bigger client >>> more promptly (allocation, etc.) than a small fish. But, I >>> expect him to meet those commitments (that *he* is defining!) >>> equally. >> >> But, very often, that small fish that was snubbed by the vendor yesterday will work >> for a huge fish tomorrow, and he will remember the snub. >> >> This happens a lot - a LOT! I've seen it four times in my career. >> >> We hired a new VP of Engineering that used to work for a small company that got >> screwed royally, then ignored by a MCU vendor. He now works for us, and we are >> massive numbers out the door each year. >> >> That same MCU vendor kissed our VP's ass and the vendor is frantically parachuting >> high-level executives into our office. But the new VP is determined to remove all >> that vendor's MCUs from all our designs. >> >> TI, Freescale, and Zilog don't understand that this can happen. Microchip does. > > Motorola understood -- they were very nice to me when I was a grad student looking for > qty 1 parts, and when I was a fresh engineer looking for 100 or so of a part that was > on allocation to Ford*. > > But when they turned into FreeFall Semiconductor, they lost that. > > * I will cherish that conversation forever: > > "I need these parts, I designed them in, trusting you to come through, and now my > Whole Company Will Die if you don't sell me some!" > > "I sympathize with your plight, sir, but Ford needs 10000 of those next month, and we > just don't have enough for them, even -- and they're FORD!" > > "10000?!? I just need 100 for a whole YEAR! (snivel, snivel)" > > "Oh, 100? They'll never notice (ticki ticki tap) -- there you are, 100 on the way!". > > They turned from my Favorite Semiconductor Company to my Very Favorite Ever > Semiconductor Company that day -- then they went and spun the whole division off... > > -- > Tim WescottVery nice... I like that. When Motorola became FreeFall (Freescale), their top management has been constantly locked in petty and vicious backstabbing office politics that has had a horrible effect on new product development and killed morale.
Reply by ●February 22, 20102010-02-22
"D Yuniskis" wrote...>> You want better. I agree. And they are in a far better >> position to spread out the costs of producing more complete > > Exactly. AND THIS IS THEIR PRODUCT (i.e., the documentation) > JUST LIKE THE SILICON ITSELF!Well-said!
Reply by ●February 22, 20102010-02-22
Tim Wescott wrote:> * I will cherish that conversation forever: > > "I need these parts, I designed them in, trusting you to come through, > and now my Whole Company Will Die if you don't sell me some!" > > "I sympathize with your plight, sir, but Ford needs 10000 of those next > month, and we just don't have enough for them, even -- and they're FORD!" > > "10000?!? I just need 100 for a whole YEAR! (snivel, snivel)" > > "Oh, 100? They'll never notice (ticki ticki tap) -- there you are, 100 > on the way!". > > They turned from my Favorite Semiconductor Company to my Very Favorite > Ever Semiconductor Company that day -- then they went and spun the whole > division off...Tim, During, the Motorola shortage I was presenter at a motorola retreat on new products. Over drinks late one afternoon I was talking to a Mot VP who explained that when a automotive VP calls you in and takes you to the window of his office and points to a parking lot filled with new cars as far as the eye can see and explains that just one mot part is needed so they can be shipped. Now says he, "That's pressure!" I agree mot used to be very good. I could always get a few parts for my customers with a phone call. Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
