On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:04:29 -0400, J.C. Wren wrote:
>First, I have to wrap my head around the idea that anyone would WANT
>to use a PIC, and use C on it on top of that. Blah! :)

PICs can do one thing the MSP430 can't -- sit on another MPU's data bus
with no glue. That's something the MSP430 can't do and something I
still use Pics for (smart peripheral chip)...

That said, I am using fewer and fewer PICs as time goes on. I still
code them in C though! :p

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems Start a New Thread

At 11:16 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, J.C. Wren wrote:
> I've been quite pleased with the results of GCC. I am at a total
> loss as to
>why ANYONE would lay out the investment for IAR tools. I've done 3 major
>projects in it, and several minor ones.
>...

I'm sure the same thing has been said for...
Apple, Microsoft, IBM, GM, Ford, GE, car, bicycle, motorcycle,... etc.

Obviously there are reasons that *some* people buy such and such. I guess
if there are truly loser products that no one likes, then it will disappear
(of course the reverse is not true..) but I am sure IAR is doing quite well
in their own right...


// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo> Start a New Thread

I have been following this thread (without much interest). But the
following clip did make me curious.

After a 15min web trawl using Google I found several sites with
keygens etc for IAR, Imagecraft and others for MSP430 C compilers.
One site offered a complete IAR suite on CD for $20.

What is the total market size for something as obsure as an MSP430
compiler, and if it so easy to obtain passwords etc, what is the
point of having them - especially if they seem to annoy even those
people who are paying for the product?


Just curious.. Start a New Thread

At 09:06 AM 6/28/2003 +0000, grahamgollings wrote:
>I have been following this thread (without much interest). But the
>following clip did make me curious.
>
>After a 15min web trawl using Google I found several sites with
>keygens etc for IAR, Imagecraft and others for MSP430 C compilers.
>One site offered a complete IAR suite on CD for $20.
>
>What is the total market size for something as obsure as an MSP430
>compiler, and if it so easy to obtain passwords etc, what is the
>point of having them - especially if they seem to annoy even those
>people who are paying for the product?

Do you know for a fact that it annoys 100% of the people who are paying for
the product? 75%? 50%, 25%, 1%? :-)

And doesn't this actually prove my point that being paranoid about being
able to use a tool because of some copy protection somewhat unfound?

And how do we know we don't have anti-cracking tool that quietly generate
bad bits?


// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo> Start a New Thread

The only proviso, of course, would be
> that you remove all copies of CrossStudio from your machines.
>
> -- Paul.


Paul you know perfectly well that I have only installed 'ONE' copy of
Crossstudio. You have only ever 'issued' ONE KEY !!!

So I am not sure where you are going with the 'REMOVE ALL COPIES FROM
YOUR MACHINES' statement above.

But. It is good to know that you unconditional offer of a full refund
is there.

Tam. Start a New Thread

--- In msp430@msp4..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:

> v1.1 is a big step up from v1.0. v1.2 will be a bigger step up,

_______________________________________________
Tam:
___________________________________________
This begs the question, which I have previously asked and you totally
ignored, so I will repeat it here for the benefit of all Avid-
Crossworks licencees, when will v1.1 be released?

_______________________________________________________
Kris:
> > Finally, I must volunteer that I took some offence to the
> > following post :
> >
>
> /*******************************************************************
*/
> > Kris,
> >
> > > > Before the list though. I can't see how you can 'assume'
> > > that it took
> > > > me 28 days to realise the fault.
> > >
> > > I meant the other way around (and it was a hypothesis !!).
> > The popping
> > > windows issue surely would have revealed within a few days of
> > > evaluation, and not need extended eval ?? (you referred to
> > Imagecraft
> > > offering 3 months, and that RAL should offer so too).
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but basic research suggests that
> > ImageCraft offer neither 90 day nor 3-month evaluations. All
> > MSP430 compiler vendors offer what is becoming an industry
> > standard 30 elapsed days evaluation and have done so for as
> > long as I care to remember.
> >
>
> > I just don't see anything constructive in this Email.
> > The phrase "Basic reasearch suggests....", has a clear
> > innuendo in my opinion that I am ill-stating something. Also
> > bear in mind that you sent me a direct Email 3 minutes before
> > that with completely different content. I understand and
> > respect that this post might be somewhat ambiguous, and open
> > for misinterpretation but I think basic courtesy has it here
> > that maybe it would have been better if you hadn't posted
> > anything at all. I just don't see the point.
>
_______________________________________________
Paul:
> The point was that Tam asserted that ImageCraft currently offer a
30-day
> evaluation and understand better what users want. However, point
is,
> currently they do not.
_______________________________________________
Tam:
___________________________________________
About the 'grammer' issue which is in fact a matter of you spin-
doctoring my words....

As you are well aware, I purchased my compiler from you, a couple of
months ago now. Surely, if not longer.

During 'the time in question', the time when I was evaluating
Imagecraft's compiler, as ImageCraft have already clarified, there
was indeed copies of their compiler being distributed with 3-month
evaluation periods, and which I had a copy of.

In the context of my messages, my 'IS' claim IS perfectly valid. I
think it is unreasonable for you to capitalise on Imagecrafts'
relatively recent change of policies (ie reduction of eval's to 1
month), which, appears to be the 'transition period' during which I
was evaluating their compiler and any references I made to the length
of evaluations were obviously based on that period.

You can not go round twisting things up and making allegations, as in
this case, you simply focused on jumping to the 'defense' of your
tool-set by suggesting that I was plucking my 'facts' from thin air.

It does suprise me though, that you were not at all aware or did not
recall that Imagescraft WAS distributing 3-month trials as recent as
in the last 6 months???

This doesn't say a lot about RAL's market research, does it. But I
suspect that is an invalid comment, because I doubt very much if this
information was unknown to you.

Either way it's not a good thing.


_________________________________________________________
> Kris, you know how much development effort and money has gone into
> providing the MSP430 product. You know we want it to be perfect,
> -- Paul.
_______________________________________________
Tam:
_______________________________________________

Now you're playing with my emotions, but you should acknowledge that
a 'perfect product' is not a formula for ultimate success, IBM PC,
Sinclair C5 and Betamax Video (though subjective) are examples of
this (for their owners).

Perhaps a better way of putting this last point is, it is not the car
that is being driven but who is driving that car that leads to motor
racing champions.


_____________________________________________
> Kris:
> Tam's original assertion was:
>
> > To be fair, this is something Imagecraft understands better than
> > Rowley Associates as the trial period IS 3-months.
>
> The assertion is that currently the evaluation period is three months,
> and it's not. The original uses IS which is present tense. It is not
> "at one time". I did basic research, visiting Richard's web site, and
> got the information.
>
> > Furthermore :
> > You state "Correct me if I'm wrong..." - well, as a matter of
> > fact, you were wrong ! Richard at Imagecraft readily
> > volunteered that Tamar was actually right, and I think when
> > revisiting the whole thread where I can somewhat sympathise
> > with Tamar (the tampered person :-), and that it would have
> > been consequential
> > for you to at least apologise somewhat to Tamar, and retract
> > it. I think Richard had set a standard there of proper
> > conduct/merit, and I really think you should have yourself too, and
> > applied basic courtesy, as you would expect yourself.
>
> No, Tam's assertion uses "IS" -- present tense, and the fact is that
> currently ImageCraft do not offer a 30-day evaluation.
>
> Richard said:
>
> > This is correct. Our demo is fully functional for 30 days,
although we
> (and
> > sounds like everyone else), extensions on requests. Once a customer
> who
> > made a purchase mentioned that he used the demo for about 4 months and
> I
> > asked him how he managed that (w/o using a crack), and he said he just
> kept
> > asking me for extensions :-)
>
> Kris continues:
>
> > I know this takes up Bandwidth on this forum, but so did some
> > of Paul's posts, which I must volunteer at times have had
> > somewhat supercilious undertones towards myself,
>
> Pardon? You'll need to fill me in here Kris, the "some of Paul's posts"
> means more than one. What do you object to which you haven't alreay
> raised?
>
> > and I feel
> > compelled to point out that "the underdog" (ie. Tam) deserves
> > fair go too as well as some exoneration,
> > as we all would expect for ourselves as well.
>
_________________________________________________________
>Paul:
> Exoneration for what? Claming ImageCraft offers a 3 month evalutation
> when they currently do not is correct.

_______________________________________________
Tam continues...
___________________________________________
Again, you are focusing on a needle in a haystack. Just stop it will
you!

It is evident that an independent, third party has also flagged to
you that you may have been some what hasty in your 'reactions' to me,
so far.

I will say this much, that I DO feel I'm owed an apology from you.
And if and when that comes I may oblige and apologise for my verbal
reactions in return.

Needless to say, you will continue to damage RAL until you deliver
it. Here. You will notice that we have gone round a full circle and
are back to square one.
Because, I did go to lengths (direct e-mails, telephone call etc.)
before raising the issues here at this forum and asked you to make
some sort of concessions to your offensive reaction.

Now I'm asking you again, but unfortunately (for all concerned)this
time, not, one on one , but in 'public'. Put an end to it. Please.


Tam. Start a New Thread

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tam" <embedded1@embe...>
To: <msp430@msp4...>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 2:45 PM
Subject: [msp430] Re: C Compiler & ASM


> --- In msp430@msp4..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
>
> > v1.1 is a big step up from v1.0. v1.2 will be a bigger step up,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tam:
> ___________________________________________
> This begs the question, which I have previously asked and you totally
> ignored, so I will repeat it here for the benefit of all Avid-
> Crossworks licencees, when will v1.1 be released?

In a previous post today Paul said it was going to be released on monday.



> It does suprise me though, that you were not at all aware or did not
> recall that Imagescraft WAS distributing 3-month trials as recent as
> in the last 6 months???
>


The trail-versions of released software from Imagecraft has ALWAYS been 30
days, at least all of ICCAVR and ICC430. The one you refere to is the
beta-version of the ICC430 (aka before it was released). This came with a 90
days trail period. All versions after release (the first DL I have of a
final product is from October 31. 2002) has been 1 month trail.

B.Reg
Geir Atle



>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> > Kris, you know how much development effort and money has gone into
> > providing the MSP430 product. You know we want it to be perfect,
> > -- Paul.
> _______________________________________________
> Tam:
> _______________________________________________ Start a New Thread

Well I have to disagree with you on one point. Why would I do this if I
didn't believe it was feasible to produce good, bug free non-trivial
systems. I also happen to believe that I have doen so on several
occasions. My 'proof' of this is that these systems have been running
for many years without a single reported software failure, or problem.
Some of these are 'mission critical' systems. The oldest has been
running for over 20 years, and I am still in contact with the client.
The newest has been tested just about to destruction over a period of 4
years without a failure. Those who call this 'Software Engineering' had
better believe this is feasible, other wise they are claiming to produce
engineered worked knowing it to be faulty. (By the way I detest the
term, programming was good enough for the guys who've been doing this
for donkeys years (an SI unit of time), to the point that resumes with
'Software Engineer' don't get past the first read.)

Any way to more important issues. Perhaps you need to maintain a log of
the threads in this group and some of the Usenet groups. If there's one
thing IAR is infamous for it is piss poor support. At least point them
at the groups to form their own opinion.

Al Start a New Thread

Hi Geir Atle,

How's it going ?
You lookig forward too to V1.1 ?

Kris Start a New Thread

"Richard F. Man" wrote:

> In theory, you need to vault off a copy of the PC w/ the OS as well. Why?
> For example, your Lattice C probably does not use a DOS-32 extender. They
> work more or less OK until Win2K and XP. So should you make sure all
> vendors' tools work on DOS box only? Etc. It's a complex issue and each
> person has to make their own decisions. We don't claim to be the best for
> everyone although we try to please as many people as we logically can. We
> are flexible. People wanted dongles, so we offer that as an option. etc.

Not a compiler, but this is exactly what I have done over the years. I
have a legacy schematic design and layout package that was last updated
in 1989. I have literally hundreds of designs done with it. In its day
it was untouchable. a DOS extended memory manager that has NEVER crashed
on me, and I consider it better than every version of protel tried to
date. It was totally integrated. There were bookcases full of manuals,
and something like 100+ floppies in the original install. Everything was
documented, file structures the lot, making it easy to write a quick and
dirty file converter or filter in C or whatever, and then integtrate
that into the package. I still have to support those designs. The
problem is my sole copy of the manuals was destroyed in a flood in 1990,
and the company was bought out by then, and the product killed. No
longer am I able to write converters to say Protel, so I'm stuck with
the proprietary file system. problem # 2 is that it only recognises hard
drives up to 32Mbytes, will not run from anything but the C: drive, and
only recognises 16 bit filing systems. I used to keep an old 486-25
around with DOS 6.22 on it, but that eventually died. My current
solution is a ZIP drive with apartioned 100M disk that boots from a
floppy and then connfigures the ZIP as drive C. It runs happily, like
this, and has done so for many years. I have various other back-ups,
including DOS 6.22 on CD-ROM, floppy, ROM (for extraction to disk) etc.
Similarly I have a lot of early Motorola tools that are not happy under
Windows DOS, they too are run under DOS from the ZIP on my 2.4 Giggle
Hurts pentium. I also have several 'foundation' files for patents and
designs that were developed under DOS. These too do not perform under
windows, many of them have in line ASM in the C code. So I never throw a
tool away, EVER. And I do keep versions of every operating system I've
used for major developments. I don't even throw away my old machines,
mostly they are left intact cleaned and covered. Only those that die get
dumped, but only when I'm certain that I am covered on any work
developed on them. Similarly development tools that might be unique. for
example I still keep a DatamAn 4, despite the fact that I haven't used a
ROM based system since 1996. We can't rely on ANY vendor being around in
the future, common sense dictates that we retain the ability to maintain
any old design that is currently active.

Al Start a New Thread