On 2016-07-18, Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote:>> ... Intel has been making noise about >> getting back into the embedded market, >> where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line > > Intel dropped the ball when they gave up the xScale ARM line > to focus on x86 architecture from Pentium to Atom to Quark. > > Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market > with the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, > and the Edison SoC (system on chip). > But I see nobody really adopting that despite > familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture. > > Intel does not seem to collaborate with others.intel collaborated with AMD in the 80s and that is still costing them. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
Atmel Bought by Microchip
Started by ●June 28, 2016
Reply by ●July 19, 20162016-07-19
Reply by ●July 19, 20162016-07-19
On 2016-07-18, Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote:> Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market with > the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, and the > Edison SoC (system on chip). But I see nobody really adopting that > despite familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture.Because the more familiar you are with the x86 architecture, the less comfortable you are with it. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! An air of FRENCH FRIES at permeates my nostrils!! gmail.com
Reply by ●July 19, 20162016-07-19
On 19 Jul 2016 10:48:33 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:>On 2016-07-18, Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>> ... Intel has been making noise about >>> getting back into the embedded market, >>> where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line >> >> Intel dropped the ball when they gave up the xScale ARM line >> to focus on x86 architecture from Pentium to Atom to Quark. >> >> Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market >> with the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, >> and the Edison SoC (system on chip). >> But I see nobody really adopting that despite >> familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture. >> >> Intel does not seem to collaborate with others. > >intel collaborated with AMD in the 80s and that is still costing them.It could be argued that they'd be nowhere without AMD.
Reply by ●July 22, 20162016-07-22
Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto:> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already > some serious contention with Atmel employees. > > http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 > > I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, > AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the > PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out > of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP.
Reply by ●July 22, 20162016-07-22
On 7/22/2016 11:46 AM, pozz wrote:> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >> >> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >> >> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >> > > I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel > Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). > > However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online > support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. > > Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP.Whose online support *does* work? I can't run synthesis in the latest update of the Lattice tools and support can't even seem to understand a simple question of "what does error code 3 mean"? -- Rick C
Reply by ●July 23, 20162016-07-23
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:>Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >> >> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >> >> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >> > >I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...).The AVR architecture isn't all that great and the framework is somewhat less great. AVR peripherals are quite nice, though.>However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing."It" meaning Atmel? Nope. Meaning "AVR", perhaps (to probably). THe larger PICs are dead, IMO. A bit late. Though MicroChip is smart enough to make money where there is money to be made.> >Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP.To spite your face?
Reply by ●July 25, 20162016-07-25
Il 22/07/2016 18:14, rickman ha scritto:> On 7/22/2016 11:46 AM, pozz wrote: >> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>> >>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>> >>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>> >> >> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). >> >> However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >> support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. >> >> Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. > > Whose online support *does* work?Before Atmel was bought from Microchip, I contacted directly Atmel support (through my Atmel section of their website, "Open a support case") and some guys helped me. The answers arrived about after 2-3 working days. Now it seems the Atmel support can't be contacted anymore.> I can't run synthesis in the latest > update of the Lattice tools and support can't even seem to understand a > simple question of "what does error code 3 mean"? >
Reply by ●July 25, 20162016-07-25
Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto:> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:46:56 +0200, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Il 29/06/2016 00:55, rickman ha scritto: >>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>> >>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>> >>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? >>> >> >> I was a fan of Atmel AVRs and SAM D2x with all the ecosystem (Atmel >> Studio 7, Atmel Software Framework, free compilers, ...). > > The AVR architecture isn't all that greatI worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better.> and the framework is > somewhat less great.They aren't so great, but usable. Anyway you can use gcc compiler (with avr-libc) with your preferred tool.> AVR peripherals are quite nice, though. > >> However I think Microchip purchased Atmel to kill it. Atmel online >> support doesn't work anymore. Atmel MCU prices seem increasing. > > "It" meaning Atmel?Yes.> Nope. Meaning "AVR", perhaps (to probably).Microchip will kill AVR and many things related to Atmel: free gcc compilers and tools, low cost debugger/programmers, mainly low cost devices.> THe > larger PICs are dead, IMO. A bit late. Though MicroChip is smart > enough to make money where there is money to be made. >> >> Too bad, I think I'll switch to ST and/or NXP. > > To spite your face?I don't like Microchip support, tools, technical supporto, sales approach. Nothing.
Reply by ●July 25, 20162016-07-25
On 2016-07-25, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:> Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto:>> The AVR architecture isn't all that great > > I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better.Talk about damning with faint praise... -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm pretending I'm at pulling in a TROUT! Am I gmail.com doing it correctly??
Reply by ●July 25, 20162016-07-25
In article <nn56ct$jti$1@reader2.panix.com>, invalid@invalid.invalid says...> > On 2016-07-25, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote: > > Il 23/07/2016 05:01, krw@attt.bizz ha scritto: > > >> The AVR architecture isn't all that great > > > > I worked with PIC and AVR and IMHO AVR is much better. > > Talk about damning with faint praise...Me thinks, you resemble this to the which is better Cyanide or Arsenic... -- Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/pi/> Raspberry Pi Add-ons <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
