On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:30:54 -0700 (PDT), Antoni Lacasta i Sull� <antoni.lacasta@googlemail.com> wrote:> During the latest months I have been receiving offers for > 32-bit MCU's, mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices > I'm currently paying for 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! > This has brought me to benchmark them with the MCU > independent part of my C++ code and surprisingly the results > are quite similar. > > Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is > this the end of the 8-bit's? I guess it is.I don't see ANY interaction from _you_ towards others' comments on this topic you brought up. I take it now to be mere trolling. Jon
Do you see any future to the 8-bit MCU's?
Started by ●July 21, 2011
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
On 23.07.2011 21:12, Nobody wrote:> However, some readers (including Pan) can maintain the threading based > upon the In-Reply-To header, and that doesn't have these problems.You're missing the point that a) an In-Reply-To header isn't even _defined_ for USENET, whereas b) References is explicitly _required_ in USENET follow-ups. So no NUA is supposed to ever need anything else besides the References header to build a thread representation, and Google is in direct violation of the applicable RFC by not supplying it. Google apparently doesn't know (or is wilfully ignoring) that News and Mail are two different things, ruled by different standards.> which is why the References header exists (but that has its own problem, > namely that it can become unreasonably long)Only if posting agents choose not to apply the rules allowing to reduce the length to rather reasonable size.> , but there's no harm in > a news reader using In-Reply-To as a fallback in the event of a missing > References header.By the time that makes anu difference, the harm has _already_ been done. By Google Groups.
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
On 23.07.2011 04:40, Don Y wrote:> On 7/22/2011 4:30 PM, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote:>> And I'm pretty sure GG broke that on purpose. Mere negligence just >> doesn't explain the level of blatant incompetence they've repeatedly >> reached whenever make any change to their service.> Assuming Google does nothing without a *reason*, this begs the question: > what do they gain by doing this? (since gain they must!)I rather suspect their long-term master plan is to poison Newsgroups as a medium, to a point where people will flock to their silly imitation web page, where they get to sell advertising. Back in the days an organization behaving like that would have faced the prospect of USENET Death Penalty. Nowadays it's probably unrealistic to hope for anything beyond individual participants just PLONKing *googlegroups.com.
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
On Jul 23, 11:42=A0pm, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker <HBBroe...@t-online.de> wrote:> On 23.07.2011 04:40, Don Y wrote: > > > On 7/22/2011 4:30 PM, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote: > >> And I'm pretty sure GG broke that on purpose. Mere negligence just > >> doesn't explain the level of blatant incompetence they've repeatedly > >> reached whenever make any change to their service. > > Assuming Google does nothing without a *reason*, this begs the question=:> > what do they gain by doing this? (since gain they must!) > > I rather suspect their long-term master plan is to poison Newsgroups as > a medium, to a point where people will flock to their silly imitation > web page, where they get to sell advertising.Sounds plausible to me, probably that's the plan. The old google groups which I use do a pretty decent job of threading ("like a tree" etc), but they are pushing the "new" google groups which are by far not as usenet friendly (I think; I only remember I looked at it and discarded it without hesitation, but I don't really remember the reason). Dimiter
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
Hi Dimiter (and Hans-Bernhard), On 7/23/2011 1:51 PM, dp wrote:> On Jul 23, 11:42 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker<HBBroe...@t-online.de> > wrote: >> On 23.07.2011 04:40, Don Y wrote: >> >>> On 7/22/2011 4:30 PM, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote: >>>> And I'm pretty sure GG broke that on purpose. Mere negligence just >>>> doesn't explain the level of blatant incompetence they've repeatedly >>>> reached whenever make any change to their service. >>> Assuming Google does nothing without a *reason*, this begs the question: >>> what do they gain by doing this? (since gain they must!) >> >> I rather suspect their long-term master plan is to poison Newsgroups as >> a medium, to a point where people will flock to their silly imitation >> web page, where they get to sell advertising.<frown> Possibly...> Sounds plausible to me, probably that's the plan. The old google > groups which I use do a pretty decent job of threading ("like a tree" > etc), but they are pushing the "new" google groups which are by far > not as usenet friendly (I think; I only remember I looked at it and > discarded it without hesitation, but I don't really remember the reason).But why *use* google groups instead of a "real" news service? (sorry, I don't use anything but google search -- and that, DECREASINGLY so...)
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
On Jul 24, 12:56=A0am, Don Y <nowh...@here.com> wrote:> Hi Dimiter (and Hans-Bernhard), > > On 7/23/2011 1:51 PM, dp wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 11:42 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker<HBBroe...@t-online.de> > > wrote: > >> On 23.07.2011 04:40, Don Y wrote: > > >>> On 7/22/2011 4:30 PM, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote: > >>>> And I'm pretty sure GG broke that on purpose. Mere negligence just > >>>> doesn't explain the level of blatant incompetence they've repeatedly > >>>> reached whenever make any change to their service. > >>> Assuming Google does nothing without a *reason*, this begs the questi=on:> >>> what do they gain by doing this? (since gain they must!) > > >> I rather suspect their long-term master plan is to poison Newsgroups a=s> >> a medium, to a point where people will flock to their silly imitation > >> web page, where they get to sell advertising. > > <frown> =A0Possibly... > > > Sounds plausible to me, probably that's the plan. The old google > > groups which I use do a pretty decent job of threading ("like a tree" > > etc), but they are pushing the "new" google groups which are by far > > not as usenet friendly (I think; I only remember I looked at it and > > discarded it without hesitation, but I don't really remember the reason=).> > But why *use* google groups instead of a "real" news service? > > (sorry, I don't use anything but google search -- and that, DECREASINGLY > so...)Oh I still do use google groups - was the first kind of usenet access I ever had and in its old form there is not much I would complain about. The crippling line splits they make annoys me most and this is only cosmetic, after all. Not such a big part of my life, I suppose, is the summed up reason why I don't look elsewhere. Dimiter
Reply by ●July 24, 20112011-07-24
On Jul 22, 3:30=A0am, Antoni Lacasta i Sull=E0 <antoni.laca...@googlemail.com> wrote:> Hi, > > During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit MCU's, m=ostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently paying for 8-bit d= evices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to benchmark them with the MCU= independent part of my C++ code and surprisingly the results are quite sim= ilar.> > Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this the end =of the 8-bit's? I guess it is. Not yet. You've missed some other very important design details, like : * Package * Vcc Range If you can tolerate a large Package, and restricted Vcc range, then 32 bits are more an option, but there are probably MORE sockets they cannot yet reach because Vcc range is not up to it, or package choice is wrong. Some 32 bit uC are showing up, with better Vcc Range, but they are the fringe right now. -jg
Reply by ●July 25, 20112011-07-25
In article <j0ca7a$6ku$1@dont-email.me>, hamilton@nothere.com says...> > On 7/22/2011 10:23 AM, Don Y wrote: > > On 7/22/2011 8:53 AM, KK6GM wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 3:28 pm, DJ Delorie<d...@delorie.com> wrote: > >>> Also compare power consumption. Renesas just came out with a > >>> brandy-spanking-new 8-bit chip family (they call it 16-bit but it's > >>> mostly 8-bit operations) specifically to address extreme low power > >>> designs. > >> > >> Just thinking out loud here. An 8-bit core is obviously (?) going to > >> be better on power consumption than a corresponding 32-bit core. > >> OTOH, an 8-bit core isn't a good fit for most real-world data, nor for > > > > *What* "real world data"? > > > > Do you need a 32b core in a mouse? Keyboard? Microwave oven? > > Controlling the power windows in your car? Running (i.e., *in*) > > your furnace or ACbrrr? As your "intelligent thermostat"? > > Scanning credit cards for sales authorizations? > > > > We see all these "big" applications (iPhones, etc.) with *huge* > > volumes... and forget that their actual volumes are *tiny* when > > you think of all the other "non-glorious" things that are out there > > "just doing their jobs"... > > LOL, remember that there is an two 8049s shipped with every computer > ever sold !!! > > One is in the keyboard. > The other is in the keyboard controller on the motherboard. > > So for every one million computers shipped, there are two million 8049s > shipped.A few questions: 1. Are those real 8049s or are they ASICS that emulate the 8049 behavior at the external interface? 2. Does the 8049 handle USB and/or Bluetooth? 3. Did Apple Computers ever use 8049s?> > hamilton > > > > >> addressing, which is why 8-bit code spends a lot of time doing 16-bit > >> work. So is it possible that 16-bits will become the preferred ultra- > >> low-power sweet spot? More energy-per-instruction than an 8-bit, but > >> fewer instructions? I know this flies in the face of "16 is dying, > >> squeezed out by 8 and 32." Like I said, just thinking out loud...I've done a lot of designs with the 16-bit TI MSP430 series. It seems to do well at jobs requiring both 16-bit math and low power operation. The line is still expanding, so I guess TI has some faith in future sales for the line. Mark Borgerson
Reply by ●July 26, 20112011-07-26
Hi Mark, On 7/25/2011 3:36 PM, Mark Borgerson wrote:> In article<j0ca7a$6ku$1@dont-email.me>, hamilton@nothere.com says...>>> We see all these "big" applications (iPhones, etc.) with *huge* >>> volumes... and forget that their actual volumes are *tiny* when >>> you think of all the other "non-glorious" things that are out there >>> "just doing their jobs"... >> >> LOL, remember that there is an two 8049s shipped with every computer >> ever sold !!! >> >> One is in the keyboard. >> The other is in the keyboard controller on the motherboard. >> >> So for every one million computers shipped, there are two million 8049s >> shipped. > A few questions: > > 1. Are those real 8049s or are they ASICS that emulate the 8049 > behavior at the external interface?Nowadays, I think they are just interface emulation. I.e., there isn't even an 8049 *core* involved. E.g., I haven't *ever* used an 804x in a keyboard interface.> 2. Does the 8049 handle USB and/or Bluetooth?AFAIK, no. They are handled in other protocol stacks and "multiplexed"/switched into the OS just above that. I.e., as "virtual" keyboards (backed by *real* keyboards)> 3. Did Apple Computers ever use 8049s?Again, AFAIK, no. I think 65816 was the biggest (pseudo-)8-bit device they used. OTOH, I think the gummit uses 6502's to make large noises in war zones... :>>>>> addressing, which is why 8-bit code spends a lot of time doing 16-bit >>>> work. So is it possible that 16-bits will become the preferred ultra- >>>> low-power sweet spot? More energy-per-instruction than an 8-bit, but >>>> fewer instructions? I know this flies in the face of "16 is dying, >>>> squeezed out by 8 and 32." Like I said, just thinking out loud... > > I've done a lot of designs with the 16-bit TI MSP430 series. It seems > to do well at jobs requiring both 16-bit math and low power operation. > The line is still expanding, so I guess TI has some faith in future > sales for the line.It all depends on *numbers*, not "philosophy". You get a single *huge* client using a 2A03, for example, and you keep making 2A03's (regardless of how doggish they are!) I shake my head every time I come across my old GI catalog and wonder how this stuff ever came to *be* -- let alone how (relatively) "successful"!
Reply by ●July 26, 20112011-07-26
Hi Dimiter, On 7/23/2011 3:12 PM, dp wrote:>>> Sounds plausible to me, probably that's the plan. The old google >>> groups which I use do a pretty decent job of threading ("like a tree" >>> etc), but they are pushing the "new" google groups which are by far >>> not as usenet friendly (I think; I only remember I looked at it and >>> discarded it without hesitation, but I don't really remember the reason). >> >> But why *use* google groups instead of a "real" news service? >> >> (sorry, I don't use anything but google search -- and that, DECREASINGLY >> so...) > > Oh I still do use google groups - was the first kind of usenet > access I ever had and in its old form there is not much I would > complain about. The crippling line splits they make annoys > me most and this is only cosmetic, after all.<shrug> Dunno, I've never seen the interface since I much prefer "real" clients over "web interfaces".> Not such a big part of my life, I suppose, is the summed up > reason why I don't look elsewhere.Understandable. If it works for you... So, why do *your* posts (presumably coming through google groups?) appear to "work right" while other folks' don't?
