On 31 Dec 2005 16:24:55 GMT, "John B" <spamj_baraclough@blockerzetnet.co.uk> wrote:>On 30/12/2005 the venerable Ian Bell etched in runes: > >. >. >. >> I partly agree, except I would have thought the 8051 was a). a closer >> competitor to PICs and b). available around the time of the 8085 and still >> in volume production by several manufacturers. >> >> Ian > >I think Intel were making the 8048 when the 8085 was young. The 8051 came later.That should be about the right time line. When the 8048/8748 was introduced the architecture was so horrible that I did not want to touch it even with a long stick. When the 8051 was introduced with claims of 8048 "compatibility", I did not even bother to study it any more deeper and just wondered, why the 8x51 became so popular. However, last year I looked a bit closer at the 8051 architecture and instruction set and it appears to be at least half decent (at least compared to the PIC :-). Thus promoting that your product is compatible (whatever that means) with your previous product can work for you or against you. Paul
free 8085 microprocessor assembler for windows
Started by ●December 29, 2005
Reply by ●January 1, 20062006-01-01
Reply by ●January 1, 20062006-01-01
Jim Granville wrote:> Kelly Hall wrote: > > I hear they'll ship the Rabbit 4000 in 2006. > > It's been a while comming - first talked about in the press > back in April 2003.There's a fairly extensive writeup by the designer, Monte Dalrymple, in the current (January 2006, #186) issue of Circuit Cellar.> The sparse info suggests it has NO (significant) on chip memory (?), > so that makes it a 3 die/chip solution [CPU+FLASH+RAM] - which is not > as appealing as the Zilog, Freescale, or even Maxim DS80C40x Ethernet > variants.True, still no on-chip memory, but there's an expanded register set and the external bus width can be set to 16 bits to improve bandwidth. There's a funky bit of code to get the thing booted before it knows what the external bus width actually is.> Plus they now have to go against the tide of ARM releases....... for which they've added a bunch of support for 32-bit operations. -- Dave Tweed
Reply by ●January 2, 20062006-01-02
David Tweed wrote:> There's a fairly extensive writeup by the designer, Monte Dalrymple, > in the current (January 2006, #186) issue of Circuit Cellar.For the business side of things, you can read the last couple of quarterly filings from DIGI (who bought Rabbit/ZWorld in May). For the $50M price tag, about $30M of that was for "intellectual property", which seems to mean RabbitSys and the Rabbit 4000. That's a good chunk of money - apparantly DIGI thinks the new features are compelling.> .... for which they've added a bunch of support for 32-bit operations.They will likely do just fine selling new and/or improved Rabbit 4000 core modules to the same folks who buy Rabbit 2000 and 3000 core modules but need more grunt. Kelly
Reply by ●January 2, 20062006-01-02
Kelly Hall wrote:> David Tweed wrote: > >> There's a fairly extensive writeup by the designer, Monte Dalrymple, >> in the current (January 2006, #186) issue of Circuit Cellar. > > > For the business side of things, you can read the last couple of > quarterly filings from DIGI (who bought Rabbit/ZWorld in May). For the > $50M price tag, about $30M of that was for "intellectual property", > which seems to mean RabbitSys and the Rabbit 4000. That's a good chunk > of money - apparantly DIGI thinks the new features are compelling.Yes, a sizable chunk, but Monte's website http://www.systemyde.com/index.html claims "Systemyde designed the Rabbit 2000/3000/4000 series microprocessors and have full core rights to these designs." - one hopes DIGI realised this, so the IP would seem to be their Variant C, and all the Rabbit/Z World modules/libraries [PCB designs will be classified as IP ]>> .... for which they've added a bunch of support for 32-bit operations. > > > They will likely do just fine selling new and/or improved Rabbit 4000 > core modules to the same folks who buy Rabbit 2000 and 3000 core modules > but need more grunt.True, and maybe they will do a stacked-die variant, that has bulk CPU/FLASH/RAM ? -jg
Reply by ●January 2, 20062006-01-02
There's a free assembler here: http://cyberia.dnsalias.com/Gfd.Dev.Tool.Htm Look for as85.zip. I don't know how good it may be.
Reply by ●January 3, 20062006-01-03
Jim Granville wrote:> True, and maybe they will do a stacked-die variant, that has bulk > CPU/FLASH/RAM ?If/when Atmel offers ASICs that way I imagine Rabbit'll order them that way ;) Kelly
Reply by ●January 3, 20062006-01-03
On 31 Dec 2005 16:24:55 GMT, John B wrote:> I think Intel were making the 8048 when the 8085 was young. The 8051 came later. I believe the 8085 > was the first micro with a multiplexed address/data bus and ALE signal, but that may just be old > age talking. > > -- > John BWell, your memory jibes with mine - see you at the old folks home... Bob
Reply by ●January 23, 20062006-01-23
In article <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > > available at > > http://www.planet-source-code.com > > > > Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very > important CPU for that OS > > NormZ80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.
Reply by ●January 24, 20062006-01-24
"ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net...> In article > <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > >> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is >> > available at >> > http://www.planet-source-code.com >> > >> >> Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very >> important CPU for that OS >> >> Norm > > Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people.That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the SpaceByte comes to mind. Norm
Reply by ●January 25, 20062006-01-25
In article <firBf.534512$zb5.54009@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:> "ziggy" <ziggy@fakedaddress.com> wrote in message > news:ziggy-D642BE.18244423012006@netnews.asp.att.net... > > In article > > <yvbtf.206276$qk4.147355@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > > "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote: > > > >> "panpipe2005" <panpipe2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1135914545.583287.59390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > free 8085 assembler for windows with source code in visual basic is > >> > available at > >> > http://www.planet-source-code.com > >> > > >> > >> Why don't you post this in COMP.OS>CPM too since the 8080/8085 was a very > >> important CPU for that OS > >> > >> Norm > > > > Z80 was/is more important to us CP/M people. > > That doesn't mean that there weren't S-100 boards that used the 8085 -- the > SpaceByte comes to mind. > > NormDidnt mean there were not others, or that they were UNimprtant to someone, just that the Z80 was the most common/important CPU for CP/M. CP/M would run on most any similar processor with a little coaxing. 8080, 8085, 8086.. even the 8051 could do it in theory.. But by far the z80 was the king of the hill .. too bad IBM chose dos.. might have been a different world today.
