32-Bit Microcontroller for New Project

On Sep 10, 1:43=A0pm, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-10, Paul Keinanen <keina...@sci.fi> wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with this. The Windows _NT_ 3.x series was a nice and
> > reliable OS running on quite cheap hardware.
>
> Even Win2K wasn't too bad. =A0XP was definitely a step down, and
> Vista is a leap off a cliff.

***NOT TOO BAD*** ????  I've been running Win2k for some 6 years now
and I would rather fight than switch!  In fact, I was all ready to buy
a new laptop with XP on it and Dell told me that I had one day left to
order it before they *forced* me to buy Vista or pay an extra $100 to
get the "dual" configuration.  So I'm still banging on my 6 year old
keyboard (MS natural, btw, even MS gets something right once in
awhile).


> > The Microsoft reputation was spoiled by the unreliable
> > MS-DOS/16 bit Windows operating systems and the Windows 9x
> > versions were not much better.
>
> Exactly. =A0None of the 16-bit stuff past about DOS 3.x was worth
> the cost of the floppies it came on.

I never had a problem with DOS.  In fact for some things I wouldn't
mind going back to it.  Of course it has little or *no* protection
from errant apps, but IMHO the biggest flaw was the memory handling.
But that is, what, some 15 years ago???


Rick

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:43:24 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
wrote:

>On 2008-09-10, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote:

>> I fully agree with this. The Windows _NT_ 3.x series was a nice and
>> reliable OS running on quite cheap hardware.
>
>Even Win2K wasn't too bad.  XP was definitely a step down, and
>Vista is a leap off a cliff.

I used to boot the NT 3.51 after the Christmas, Eastern and summer
holidays, not because the OS required it, but I did not want the
hardware run unattended for days or weeks.

W2k/XP needs a reboot at least once a month. For some strange reason
if you open a few dozen of windows in an application (such as IE,
Firefox, Acrobat etc.) and then close all windows, the memory is not
properly released, when some other application _actually_ needs the
memory. 

It is of course a good OS design to keep the pages for terminated
programs in memory, if the program is restarted again, but if the
pages are not released, when some other program needs them, this is
simply bad OS design.

The other problem with NT4/W2k/XP/Vista is that you can not use it in
a hostile environment (such as connected to the internet) without
frequent reboots due to security updates.

Paul

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:26:34 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:43:24 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2008-09-10, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote:
>
>>> I fully agree with this. The Windows _NT_ 3.x series was a nice and
>>> reliable OS running on quite cheap hardware.
>>
>>Even Win2K wasn't too bad.  XP was definitely a step down, and
>>Vista is a leap off a cliff.
>
>I used to boot the NT 3.51 after the Christmas, Eastern and summer
>holidays, not because the OS required it, but I did not want the
>hardware run unattended for days or weeks.
>
>W2k/XP needs a reboot at least once a month. For some strange reason
>if you open a few dozen of windows in an application (such as IE,
>Firefox, Acrobat etc.) and then close all windows, the memory is not
>properly released, when some other application _actually_ needs the
>memory. 
I thought that that was an old known problem for all versions of
windows.

>It is of course a good OS design to keep the pages for terminated
>programs in memory, if the program is restarted again, but if the
>pages are not released, when some other program needs them, this is
>simply bad OS design.
>
>The other problem with NT4/W2k/XP/Vista is that you can not use it in
>a hostile environment (such as connected to the internet) without
>frequent reboots due to security updates.

You can if you connect via a NAT router, and disallow all incomming
connections.  AND you are very careful what applications you run.

My primary outside system is W98, original version, and I have never
had any kind of infection in over the 10 years I have been using it.
But, then, I am quite careful of where I go on the web.  And I do have
a virus scanner.  And I don't use IE or any version of Lookout, both
of which are/were known to do security type things wrong by default.
-- 
ArarghMail809 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.

Paul Keinanen wrote:
> For some strange reason
> if you open a few dozen of windows in an application (such as IE,
> Firefox, Acrobat etc.) and then close all windows, the memory is not
> properly released, when some other application _actually_ needs the
> memory. 
> It is of course a good OS design to keep the pages for terminated
> programs in memory, if the program is restarted again, but if the
> pages are not released, when some other program needs them, this is
> simply bad OS design.

However that's not what happens with XP. Little though I like Windows,
your assertions are pure FUD and lies. I have built kernel-level tools
that snapshot the page tables of all running processes, and analyze
the memory usage, and what you're suggesting simply doesn't happen.
I can provide the programs for you to verify this yourself, if you
should happen one day to care more about the truth than bashing
Windows.

Clifford Heath.

> "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> writes:
>> >> AVR32 and AVR32 Studio
>> > AVR32 Studio is Eclipse, which is full-featured but for my money very
>> > slow.
>>
>> Saw some studies on this.
>> Eclipse uses a lot of RAM. Minimum 1 GB, possibly 2 GB  is needed.
>> If you have too little RAM you would obviously be swapping = SLOW.
>
> What kind of grotesque implementation is this?  Are they
> loading everything on the hard drive into memory just to
> have some ballast?

This study was made by a customer using Eclipse.
The study was not using AVR32 Studio.
Also, the 1-2 GB requirement is for the PC
I did not mean that Eclipse uses an extra GB or two.

-- 
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB