On Jan 3, 11:37=A0am, whygee <why...@yg.yg> wrote:> > $800? I am using an old HP Pentium III (900MHz Pentium III) laptop I > > bought off eBay for $70. It came with a licensed copy of Windows 2000, > > Well, I am currently using a P3 laptop (500 MHz) here, under Debian, > and the same, but 700MHz version, under w2k, for some electronics stuffs. > The sad fact : MCHP's MPLAB9 does not work/install anymore on w2k (i use t=he Oh wow, I didn't know that. I use V8.> currently ordering, and this one is going to suck more RAM than i can affo=rd> (after buying the Actel kit, which recommends 2BG, while my best laptop2GB is a bare minimum for doing big FPGA development, and a fast multicore processor is advisable. A full build on a big project (I was working with Virtex4) can take a day on a slower computer.> Well... I also just got a PicKit2 and this sucker's driver installer > wanted w2k SP4 (i'm somewhere in SP3).SP4 is a rollup update, it can be downloaded from MS.> > I do not as yet have a compelling application for this particular > > chip, I have experimented only for the sake of learning a bit about it. > > What did you try with it ? What succeeded and what failed ? > have you found something particularly good or bad ?Nothing failed. Nothing is particularly bad. The problem is that nothing is particularly good either; cost, MIPS/mW, peripherals. There's absolutely nothing in the range that would justify me moving my code from existing ARM platforms. Same problem I have with AVR32; I read the product announcement and my response is "so what?". For a brand new design I would consider PIC32 alongside the other alternatives, but frankly uChip's chance of a design win is low unless they compete very favorably on price. And the problem with that is that most of the other ARM chips we already buy in huge quantities, so uChip would have to match the 10^6 price on an order that's maybe 10^4 pieces.
Microchip's PIC32 : comments needed
Started by ●January 3, 2008
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
On Jan 3, 2:00=A0pm, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:> > By definition, anyone who is doing embedded development is at least a > > bit ahead of the "I need an icon to double-click!" mindset. If not, > > Maybe, but only a fool makes more work for themselves than need be doneWell, be it known that I do not in fact do most of my dev work in Linux (any more). This is principally because I haven't developed for embedded Linux much in the past 6~12 months. When Linux of any flavor is the target OS, I find it definitely the path of least resistance to use Linux as the host OS. But even within Linux, there are many simple-to-use tools. I use EAGLE for my PCB/schematic work, and this is 100% identical Windows/Linux/ MacOS. Rowley's IDE is likewise identical Windows/Linux. Xilinx ISE etc... Simply the lack of a Windows logo in the taskbar is not sufficient reason to declare an operating system impossibly difficult to use. When I'm working with parts that have good Linux tool support, I prefer to use Linux.
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:> > > larwe wrote: > >> On Jan 3, 1:26 pm, donald <Don...@dontdoithere.com> wrote: >> >> >>> I for one is sick of the M$ tax, but Linux will not ( does not want to >>> as far as I can tell) be as simple to use. >> >> >> >> By definition, anyone who is doing embedded development is at least a >> bit ahead of the "I need an icon to double-click!" mindset. If not, >> perhaps you're in the wrong profession. > > > Donald made a valid point: > > >>Those who preach the benifits of Linux, fail to understand that the > >>WinTel enviroment is just easier to use and program in. > > The goal of a project is accomplishing something that works. The > learning curve only adds to the overhead. > > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant > http://www.abvolt.comWould it be that dificult to create an environment under Linux that acts like some of the WinTel development environments ?? Again, why don't the Linux developers just try it ? Every few months I try to get a development system running with Linux. This holiday I tried again. Could not do it by myself. Please help me and the others who want to leave M$ behind. I would even pay for it. A Linux environment has got to be cheaper that then the $1000- $2000 IDE environments out there. Start with a FREE compiler and add the install tools that will make it a no brainer. I just don't understand why it has not already happened. ( unless the linux people just don't want too ) donald
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
On Jan 3, 2:41=A0pm, donald <Don...@dontdoithere.com> wrote:> Start with a FREE compiler and add the install tools that will make it a > no brainer.The only person with financial incentive to do it is the chip vendor. It's very difficult for enthusiasts to develop such software, even if they have the desire, because of proprietary secret debugging protocols not disclosed by the mfr (and covered by NDA so not implementable in open-source software).
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
> I install a application in WinTel and it is ready to use. > Icon on the desktop, examples ready to run. > Without ever seeing it before.You are still doing it the hard way. Instead of downloading anything, grab the remote control of an oldfashioned TV, sit down and enjoy. No need to use or understand anything beyond the few keys on the remote control. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/ On Jan 3, 8:26=A0pm, donald <Don...@dontdoithere.com> wrote:> This is a good example why Linux is not a good development tool. > > Those who preach the benifits of Linux, fail to understand that the > WinTel enviroment is just easier to use and program in. > > I install a application in WinTel and it is ready to use. > Icon on the desktop, examples ready to run. > Without ever seeing it before. > > Linux requires you to have a tutor on hand to tell you where the program > got loaded to. > Someone to tell you where the example file are located. > Someone to tell you where the linker files are located. > > There is not one editor to use. > So someone need to tell you where an editor is located, or which one to > load and you start at the top all over again. > > I for one is sick of the M$ tax, but Linux will not ( does not want to > as far as I can tell) be as simple to use. > > donald
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
larwe wrote:> On Jan 3, 2:41 pm, donald <Don...@dontdoithere.com> wrote: > > >>Start with a FREE compiler and add the install tools that will make it a >>no brainer. > > > The only person with financial incentive to do it is the chip vendor. > > It's very difficult for enthusiasts to develop such software, even if > they have the desire, because of proprietary secret debugging > protocols not disclosed by the mfr (and covered by NDA so not > implementable in open-source software). >Well that sounds like a cop out. Ok, yes there needs to be a hardware debugger. Yes, the chip vendors do keep it secret. But to install an IDE and compiler is harder than it looks. So, do I hear you saying the Linux people are out of line complaining about WinTel. :-) donald
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
donald wrote:> Would it be that dificult to create an environment under Linux that acts > like some of the WinTel development environments ??Linux is very handy once you got used to it and configured everything for yourself. Until then it is pain and suffer. M$ is vice versa: the deeper you are getting, the more annoying and restrictive it is.> Again, why don't the Linux developers just try it?It is getting there. The Ubuntu is almost as user friendly as Windows 95 used to be. Wait for another 10 years :)> Every few months I try to get a development system running with Linux. > This holiday I tried again. > Could not do it by myself. > Please help me and the others who want to leave M$ behind.And why exactly do you want to leave M$?> I would even pay for it. A Linux environment has got to be cheaper that > then the $1000- $2000 IDE environments out there.There are no wonders. Everyone gets what he paid for.> Start with a FREE compiler and add the install tools that will make it a > no brainer.Quite many of the commercial packages are based on the GCC core with some modifications, wrapped into the good looking IDE.> I just don't understand why it has not already happened.It has happened. You just don't see the origin under the upper layers. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
In article <86947528-f617-487e-8a8f- b8fdad5a499f@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, zwsdotcom@gmail.com says...> On Jan 3, 2:00=A0pm, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >=20 > > > By definition, anyone who is doing embedded development is at least a > > > bit ahead of the "I need an icon to double-click!" mindset. If not, > > > > Maybe, but only a fool makes more work for themselves than need be done >=20 > Well, be it known that I do not in fact do most of my dev work in > Linux (any more). This is principally because I haven't developed for > embedded Linux much in the past 6~12 months. When Linux of any flavor > is the target OS, I find it definitely the path of least resistance to > use Linux as the host OS. >=20 > But even within Linux, there are many simple-to-use tools. I use EAGLE > for my PCB/schematic work, and this is 100% identical Windows/Linux/ > MacOS. Rowley's IDE is likewise identical Windows/Linux. Xilinx ISE > etc... >=20 > Simply the lack of a Windows logo in the taskbar is not sufficient > reason to declare an operating system impossibly difficult to use. > When I'm working with parts that have good Linux tool support, I > prefer to use Linux. >=20I don't disagree with you on any particular point. I was just playing devil's advocate. We use a couple of flavors of Linux here and I like the fact that it can=20 run VERY well on limited resources. That being said, simply the addition of a Windows logo doesn't make an=20 OS any more easier to use either. Most of what people consider the=20 "OS" these days isn't. I think the "Desktop" look and feel is now=20 mistakenly referred to as the OS. At least Linux still differentiates=20 its' OS from the GUI in its' general terminology. Jim
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
On Jan 3, 3:05=A0pm, donald <Don...@dontdoithere.com> wrote:> But to install an IDE and compiler is harder than it looks.I don't really know what you're talking about here. Installing, say, Eclipse, is a one-step operation. Installing a compiler depends on whether you have to build it (which I usually do) or if a prebuilt version is available. But it's all useless unless there is a way to get the object code into the target, which is the really difficult step.
Reply by ●January 3, 20082008-01-03
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:41:38 -0700, donald wrote:> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:>> larwe wrote:>>> On Jan 3, 1:26 pm, donald <Don...@dontdoithere.com> wrote:Let me preface this by saying that I don't do embedded work for a living but that I have made some money off embeded work. Most of what I do is as a hobby and to keep my EE skills and my employment in networking doesn't exercise them enough to keep them useful. I started this back in the day of triple supplies and the confusion between a 2508, a 2508 and a 2708 (don't worry if you don't understand). It was write, burn, debug, erase, rinse, lather repeat. I was spoiled in that we had an emulator to debug code. I still have a Z80 emulator on my Z80 starter kit, what a thing of beauty. Then I was employed to do this kind of work.> Would it be that dificult to create an environment under Linux that > acts like some of the WinTel development environments ?? > > Again, why don't the Linux developers just try it ?Some of us don't like the details hidden from us. I often find IDEs to be too restrictive. Also I like working in a shell and in my editor (emacs). I have this under X and I generally have the datasheet open and Bitscope running or a custom made tool (I do a lot of home automation). I've tried this under Windows but it's just not the same.> Every few months I try to get a development system running with Linux. > > This holiday I tried again. > > Could not do it by myself. > > Please help me and the others who want to leave M$ behind. > > I would even pay for it. A Linux environment has got to be cheaper that > then the $1000- $2000 IDE environments out there. > > Start with a FREE compiler and add the install tools that will make it a > no brainer.Right now I have a coding environment for the 8051 family (last project was on an a 80251), Z80 (z180), PIC 14 bit family (? 16F84, 16F877, ...), ARM, MIPS, AVR (m128) and AVR32. I may have missed a few as I can't remember all the stuff I play with. I also have DOS and Windows development tools on my Linux dev system. The FPGA stuff I've played with has only worked under Windows (though I haven't checked lately). I've never really done anything with the FPGA yet. -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies