MISC not for embedded?
- To: MISC
- Subject: MISC not for embedded?
- From: "Berwyn Hoyt" <blhoyt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:20:29 +1300
- In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.19990215020627.00b613a0@xs4all.nl>
- Priority: normal
- References: <s6c2db2c.011@snds.com>
- Reply-to: Berwyn Hoyt <blhoyt@xxxxxxxxxx>
I agree with all of this. My company uses embedded processors
extensively in monitoring applications. We never need speed.
Cost & on-chip peripherals (lack of other costs) are usually the
biggest factors. Chuck's P8 and P32 ideas look really good for
price, but I doubt they'll have the on-chip peripherals. (And I doubt
they'll be for mass-sale for a LOOONG time. Correct me if I'm
wrong.)
> What embeddable processors need is:
> - Many on-chip peripherals
> - On board (small) RAM en (big) [[[E]E]P]ROM.
> - Low cost (so high production volume)
> - Good support from the manufacturer
>
> Speed is often not essential.
>
> Not really the playing field for the MISC it seems. The MISC needs
> to find a niche between simple embedded applications and real computers.
> Seems that it will have to compete with the ARM, i960, H32 (?) etc.
>
> What clients in this field often want is that there is progress in the
> development process of the processor. When I buy an n Mips processor
> today, can I buy an 2n MHz processor next year to satisfy the growing
> requirements of my own clients and my software etc. (Or when the processor
> turns out to be too slow after my software development cycle of several
> months.)
Berwyn Hoyt: BLHoyt@xtra.co.nz
1 Betts Ave
Masterton
New Zealand
This tagline is randomly selected:
Thought for the day:
Communist (n): one who has given up all hope
of becoming a Capitalist.