PDA

View Full Version : How long to wait for the MAC version of SPIN?



DavidM
02-11-2007, 07:01 AM
Hi,

Is there any word on when the MAC OSX version of SPIN will come out?

I have a PC ( which I borrowed from my brother) and its full of viruses and stuff, It does work fine for the PROPELLOR but I have 3 macs in the office ( none of them are intel based), which I do all my other work and programming on.

I refuse to connect my PC to my network, as It may get more virus's and stuff. but I need to copy and paste code to my mac so I can use this forum ( currently I am using a CD for transfers)

I also don't want to spend money on PARALLELS and especially WINDOWS, to make SPIN run on a mac, I would rather buy more prop chips and stuff.

I would be even happy to PAY for a MAC version!

I actually think there are a whole lot of MAC users out there that want to get into MICRO CONTROLLERS using the MAC platform.

regards


Dave M

Paul Baker
02-11-2007, 07:40 AM
At present there are no plans for developing a Mac version of the Propeller tool by Parallax. There has been much discussion about this recently/currently, check out the many other threads discussing this.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

DavidM
02-11-2007, 07:47 AM
Hi Paul,

Thats a shame, one of the reasons I chose the PROP ( besides it great features) was the mention of PC Version first followed by a MAC version later?

regards

Dave M

Mike Green
02-11-2007, 08:05 AM
Guest PC ($70 - www.lismoresystems.com) will let you run Windows XP on a PowerPC Mac. It's slow, but adequate to run the Propeller Tool. With Vista released, you may be able to get discounted XP copies. Be sure to turn off automatic updates in Windows (slows it down terribly).

There are Mac users out there (myself included), but that doesn't make it practical (think - affordable) for Parallax to make a Mac version, particularly with the ability to run Windows at full speed on newer Macs.

Post Edited (Mike Green) : 2/11/2007 12:12:25 AM GMT

Paul Baker
02-11-2007, 08:14 AM
I don't believe we ever made such a promise. Something I don't think many people understand is that we have a single person who develops the Propeller tool. And while this consumes the majority of his time, it is far from the only responsibility he has. If we met all our consumer demands we would have to write a Tool, C compiler, BASIC compiler and Forth compiler and have each of these working on Windows, MacOS and linux, not to mention the numerous requests for added features we get every week. To do this we would have to double the number of employees at the company, all for something we charge nothing for.

That said, we are sensitive to the desires of our customers and while it isn't possible to do everything every customer wants us to do, we can sometimes take steps to serve a large number of customer requests. Now don't take what I'm about to say as any sort of promise, but when the creator returns from vacation we will be having discussions on providing libraries so that customers can develop thier own version of the tool on the OS of thier choice. Judging by the amount of discussion going on about this, undoubtedly they will take them and run a breakneck pace to develop the alternative OS tools.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

DavidM
02-11-2007, 08:54 AM
Hi Paul,

I think i got exited when I read about the COMPILER/LIBRARY ?? which can then be used by other 3rd party developers.
I think I read this too quickly as well.

sorry bout that. http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Don't forget, I don't mind paying for an application ( i.e SPIN) especially if its used everyday!
I am not sure how others feel about paying for the applications.

Anyhow, I just have to get my PC networked and cleaned up, so I can communicate easier with this forum and its users.

Thanks Paul

regards

Dave M.

Paul Baker
02-11-2007, 09:25 AM
Like I said it's not a promise, other that we will give it due consideration, you are not the only one who wants to see the Tool on other OS's.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

T Chap
02-11-2007, 10:51 AM
I will pay $149 for an OSX 10.3.9 Propeller Tool.

Luis Digital
02-11-2007, 11:29 AM
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
At present there are no plans for developing a Mac version of the Propeller tool by Parallax. There has been much discussion about this recently/currently, check out the many other threads discussing this.


Propeller and Operating System:
"we do intend to develop and provide a Propeller Compiler library that third parties may use to compile Propeller applications on Macs and Linux operating systems. The timeline for this has not been set at this point, but we will likely be working on this solution the latter half of this year." (2006)

It seems me that only they were centered too much in Windows, many very good tools exist to create you program multi-platform. For example, use KiCad in Linux, but some they use it in Windows (exists another version for MacOS), and they are available in a same time. That is because they are using the adequate tools.

I codified Klinton (http://luisdigital.com/proyectos/klinton/) in Linux and in some days had a version for Windows, because use Lazarus (http://luisdigital.com/programacion/lazarus/). Another example mine X52 (http://luisdigital.com/proyectos/x52/).

The community of Lazarus/FPC is very friendly, any question will be attended.

DavidM
02-11-2007, 11:47 AM
Thanks Paul Baker,


It's one of those things, that if you don't ask, you don't get!

How about a customer survey asking..

1) What Platform PC / LINUX / MAC etc ?
2) How much are you willing to pay for?

This might give you an Idea, the money will certainly help with development cost etc..

I wonder how many MAC users out there are wanting to get into MICROPROCESSOR dev?

regards

Dave Metus

bassmaster
02-11-2007, 11:58 AM
originator said...
I will pay $149 for an OSX 10.3.9 Propeller Tool.
I bought a 1 ghz laptop with win xp on it on ebay for 225 bucks 3 months ago with 512 mb ram. Sit one on your workstation and whalla!

Paul Baker
02-11-2007, 12:00 PM
I stand corrected, so we will be releasing libraries at some point.

Parallax made the determination that thier business is in selling hardware not software, so we never (at least that I'm aware of) have charged for any software we have written. It's highly unlikely that we will start now. What would happen is our releasing libraries (free) that other 3rd parties could use to to create thier own tools. Whatever environment is used to create the tool (gtk, eclipse, python, java, ...) is entirely upto the 3rd party.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

bassmaster
02-11-2007, 12:04 PM
I for one will not buy a compiler for the prop if Paralax markets one that only works with rev X, Ill buy all the 1st gen chips I can get, and use the freebie IDE.

T Chap
02-11-2007, 12:38 PM
bass said...
I bought a 1 ghz laptop with win xp on it on ebay



Haha yeah I bought a new Toshiba laptop just for programming, fast, sleek, nice display. There is a built in finger pad (to substitute in the absence of a mouse). I hate those built in things, and use a real USB mouse instead. However, you cannot disable the finger pad no matter how many times you select "disable" in the control panel. I hit that finger pad 50 times a day, and have to go back and make corrections just as many times where the cursor has moved.

This is just one example of why I would be happy to pay for a Mac version.

JoannaK
02-11-2007, 04:59 PM
For me... WIn2k compatibility is the key. I've no intention at the moment to upgrade ths system (Athlon 1700+ from 2002) since this one works almost 100% (original install, some minor hw upgrades done) and I seriously doubt that I would ever be so lucky to find another 24/7 reliable windowse PC again.

Besides.. all they seem to sell (as a new) are Vista. And there's way too much hw-driver issues with those.

bassmaster
02-11-2007, 07:09 PM
orig, go into bios/setup and see if you can disable it. orˇpull the ribbon on the board, usually easy to get to with a screwdriver, just pop the keyboard off.

I "blew" $5000 on fishing lures last year alone, so who am I to say you should or should not offer to pay.

I am, and others here are consultants, I do not have a MAC, but have owned the motorolla ones in the past, and have access to Macs.

Get me a High level of what you want, I'll put a SOW Together and give you an estimate, my hourly rate is $125.00 an hour to delivery/accesptance, then after 30 days is $90 an hour.

Even if I had access to the asm libraries, To Write a pretty IDE from scratch that looks and feels like propeller.exe and really works. My high level estimate of design/constuction/unit testing/qa/and delivery will be in the thousands.

Parallax knows the cost of software development, (Ask Asterick how much time he spent on Gear using C# (a farily rapid language). I am sure it was hundreds of hours if not more.)

Say they Spent $5000.00 on construction/qa of a Mac version, Then the would also need to train the helpdesk to support it, Technical writers to document it, forum moderation. (Social security and insurace cost of all those peoples time)

They have to ask themselves, how many will we deliver?/Sell..... If they give it away, they eat into their profit margin as it is a cost center hole. / If they charge for it, then everyone will be mad at them because, "its not fair that the windows one is free"

If Parallax can get us a command line compiler source in c, then we all can build anything you want.

PM any cobsultant here and they can oblige you in your every whim then, At a cost.

Or wait around, use your pc for now, and you will probably get what you want from the open source community.

If your a Good Programmer, you could start writing a nice IDE for the mac, that is extensible for when a compiler is available!

If your not, then no better time to start.


FYI, Bass, its BassMASTER I am not a Fish! hehe just kiddin.

bassmaster
02-11-2007, 07:37 PM
On another note, kind of off topic, I like Apple, they use the KISS aproach, one button, less work. Look at all the most successful progams out there, what do we use most:

Notepad / or any Text editor
calculator apps
spreadsheet apps
html browsers

Microsht added so many bells and whistles to Excel that I had to read 2 books to be proficiant on it for work.
Web development is full of so much crud now that mozilla and IE7 can no longer access my Banks websits, so I have to use another pc with ie6 to get to it!.

KISS is where its at, propeller.exe is simple to use, I would like some bells and whistles there though, like hit the dot and have it pop up the public methods,

But back in the day, Pbasic for DOS was where it was at (The main reason for parallax's success IMHO) I could run it on my IPAQ in a dos emulator! or linux in DOSEMU

By the time Parallax writes an IDE for the mac, someone will have already open sourced a way to program the prop through the mac.

I am part of the solution here, I am writing in anci c c2spin and c2asm methods that for now just output .spin files, later I can plug it in the compiler project on sourceforge, for me it is just a fun challnge.

Larry
05-11-2007, 02:54 PM
You can help make it possible for the propeller tool to run on a Mac without Windows by signing up Here:
www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name?app_id=2904 (http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name?app_id=2904)

The Tool sorta works with Codeweaver now, so it just might be that some help from interested parties would put things over the top.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔

rjo_
05-12-2007, 04:15 AM
Parallax could get it done for free, own the royalties, and not have to give up any voting shares to get it.

They don't want to... and I can't blame them.

There is an upside and a downside to every approach to business... I like the track that Parallax has followed and hope they never change.

If Apple offered to pay an employee or two to come to Parallax and work under the "Brother's" guidance, that might work. But... can Apple be trusted?

Rich

rjo_
05-12-2007, 04:17 AM
As an Apple loyalist...

I think it would be just perfect... if Mac users had to pay... while everyone else got it for free:)

Yes... I even bought a Lisa... and I still have a NEXT box with less than 40 man hours of use.


Rich

rjo_
05-12-2007, 04:27 AM
This is way beyond me at the moment... but there are a couple of you who are more than capable...

I honestly believe that the most interesting synergy is between the Propeller and a Public Domain ... government support, image processing program called ImageJ... it is Java... and is multiplatformed. But it is also available for commercial "wrapping."

I would strongly encourage independent, development minded individuals or companies to take a look at it. I think there are going to be real markets for such a combo... a year or two down the line.

Rich

lairdt
05-12-2007, 04:44 AM
As already mentioned in the Linux thread on this same porting topic, it's not going to happen from Parallax. I don't blame them a bit, and I'm an old MINIX guy.

I like building things, but building something like this just isn't worth the energy & frustration. Really loved my NEXT Cube (and my UTeks for that matter) but I understand that to get some stuff to work you just must have the required platform.

haikusw
05-27-2007, 11:49 PM
Well, I can understand this being a lot of work for a single programmer. Since you do not charge for your software, why not make the development tools open source under the LGPL license and let us help you. Put up a subversion repository and find a few people who are qualified to moderate or be the checkin folks. Put up your current source for Windows so we don't have to start from scratch and I bet you'd be surprised how quickly you'd have development tools ready. There are many experienced macintosh programmers out there who are capable of helping with this effort to get the development tools needed onto the Mac.


Myself, I wouldn't write an entire IDE. My first choice would be to hook it up to the free and very capable IDE from Apple, Xcode. If that was somehow not possible (not sure how that could be the case since it hooks up to the gnu compiler collection), then I'd use the Eclipse IDE which is already being used as an embedded development in this way by a number of hardware manufacturers (though I'd prefer to use Xcode myself).

Regards,
haikusw

P.S. would prefer you remove the emoticons thing on the left - it's jamming processor and annoyingly distracting.

Mike Green
05-28-2007, 12:07 AM
haikusw,
I'm not a Parallax employee, but an observation ... While all of their development tools are free, they are considered very proprietary and, I'm sure, will not be made open source. They have made it very clear that they have no plans to release a non-Windows version of the compiler and the reasons all have to do with the fact that they have very limited resources (Chip is busy and he wrote the compiler in assembly language and there's only one other systems programmer there (Jeff Martin - who wrote the IDE) and he's busy).

It may be that Parallax will eventually release a Windows command-line compiler. There's been a little discussion of that possibility. I've been able to run the current IDE, at least to compile programs , under CrossOver Desktop (with some minor glitches). Maybe the command-line compiler would run under Wine on an Intel Mac.

Post Edited (Mike Green) : 5/27/2007 4:14:16 PM GMT

haikusw
05-28-2007, 12:24 AM
I understand about limited resources and what I was trying to point out is that this limitation is only in their minds. There are thousands of talented Mac OS X engineers in the world who would work for FREE on this for them if only they'd take a look at what can be done with the open source movement.

I don't understand why you'd want to make your tools proprietary, so likely that's the piece missing from my analysis. Wouldn't you want as many people as possible using your chip so you could sell millions and millions of them? Wouldn't you want your microprocessor to take the world by storm and leave all the others in the dust - especially if you had created a ground-breaking new disruptive technology?

They've documented the chip's command set (in ASM), so wherein is the value in keeping the higher level and more usable language proprietary? If you look at language development and popularity across the software development horizon, the one's that are standardized and open source are the ones that "win".

As an Apple Mac based developer of 20 years, I'd sure like to be able to use their cool new chip, but I have zero interest in running windows. That means I have to make my own compiler or look at a different micro-controller, which is a shame since this one looks like it's the innovative leading edge, which is where Mac people usually like to be.

I'm surprised that they wrote their compiler in assembler. I haven't built a compiler in 20 years (since back in school), but even then yacc and lex and so on were pretty much coming into the world as the way to do such a thing. Especially on modern hardware where the speed of the compiler is not really that big a deal. I guess maybe they want the generated code to be optimized heavily, but again - why would they want to keep the techniques for doing this secret?

Admittedly not knowing a great deal about embedded software development, if I were making a custom chip, seems like I'd based my development tools on the gnu compiler collection and leverage all the decades of work that have gone into optimizing that toolchain and the 10s of thousands of developers who have and are working on it to make it better.

oh well. Guess I'll think about how interested in this chip I am and see if I'm interested enough to take the lead in writing a compiler/assembler for it myself and start an open source project to do so. Probably not (less time now that I'm older and have a family).

luck.

codemonkey
05-28-2007, 01:24 AM
haikusw,

Here's a thread you might check out:

http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=611536

Ale
05-28-2007, 02:22 AM
@haikusw:

I'd really like to have some native tools for MacOSX, that I have to install some windows (virtualized) to be able to run the IDE (and some logic analyzer soft) doesn't buy me. Simple command line compilers, that run on multiple platforms are not rocket science, especially due to the limited amount of memory the Propeller has. (btw, I really do not believe the compiler was programmed in assembler. as there is zero gain, and Delphi is more than capable of such a simple task). As I do not want to use windows that much, I'm working on an assembler (only for now) simulator, but in Java (from the start GPL). I'll add it an assembler too, because I'm interested in assembly programming, so testing the programs before would be very helpful. I'll post it as-soon-as-it-does-something-useful.

mirror
05-28-2007, 06:39 AM
To all those "commited" programmers out there:

The GEAR emulation tool will give you an *excellent* idea of what opcodes the spin language is translated into. Conceptually it's not a huge step to go from there and reverse-engineer your way to an open source spin compiler. If all those engineers out there have all that time to devote to an open source tool, then why not get on with it? I'd love to (and could) write the open source version - buit simply don't have the time! So, instead, I've try to make little enhancements to GEAR. Primarily to make my life easier, but I'm willing to share it with others. I didn't write GEAR, and I hugely admire Asterik for taking the time to do it - It was/is a substantial commitment on his part. If he did no more to the cause of an open source tool, then he would have done as much as anyone else is likely to do.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
It's not all that hard to count the number of grains of sand on the beach. The hardest part is making a start - after that it just takes time.ˇˇ Mirror - 15 May 2007

haikusw
05-28-2007, 11:42 AM
Well, that's cool. Interesting even.

The point is, all that reverse engineering is a pain when you could be programming instead http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
And it's TOTALLY unnecessary. If only they made this part open source so those of us who prefer not to use windows can use their cool chip!

besides, GEAR only runs on windows - I'm not that interested in spending that much time in windows when there are so many cool things I can program, without reverse engineering an emulator, on the mac.

Thanks for pointing it out though. If I get desperate enough to program the propeller chip, who knows, I might get motivated to spend that much time in windows. Might be easier just to use their windows developer tools at that point though...

potatohead
05-28-2007, 12:33 PM
Interesting observation about spin compiler development, based on GEAR.

Personally, the chip is worth it. (and I really don't like win32 either, but it's no biggie) The assembly language is powerful and growing easier by the day. There is an assembler that could run other places and writing one is not the task that duplicating spin is.

(said assembler could easily output the little bit of SPIN to get things started too.)

Rev 2 of the prop will very likely be self hosting. If this is the case, interacting it would be OS independant. (terminal, etc...)

One other thing: I'll bet we can nail down that undocumented serial bit. Given this, WINE will work nicely going forward. This is likely less work than alternative OS support.

Support scales poorly. I support Parallax in their current dev path.

Mike Green
05-28-2007, 12:41 PM
potatohead,
If we can run the compiler under WINE, there already is a loader that works in Python. Any decent IDE (like XCode for the MacOS or any of several for Linux) can do the scripting to run WINE and the compiler or the Python loader. There is a cross platform assembler already that mostly works that can also be used.

mirror
05-28-2007, 02:25 PM
haikusw said...
Well, that's cool. Interesting even.

The point is, all that reverse engineering is a pain when you could be programming instead http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
And it's TOTALLY unnecessary. If only they made this part open source so those of us who prefer not to use windows can use their cool chip!

besides, GEAR only runs on windows - I'm not that interested in spending that much time in windows when there are so many cool things I can program, without reverse engineering an emulator, on the mac.

Thanks for pointing it out though. If I get desperate enough to program the propeller chip, who knows, I might get motivated to spend that much time in windows. Might be easier just to use their windows developer tools at that point though...
The GEAR sourceˇcode is C#, so could probably run under Mono without too much trouble - I'm sure I've read something about that already. SO, you don't neccesarily need Windows - just the source code for GEAR.

I confess, I do use Windows. Maybe I'll switch to Linux one day - the whole Vista thing couldˇgive the sort of motivation required - possibly. But at the moment, it really just is easier to use Windows.

The real point is:
1) Parallax have said that the Tool codeˇis not going to be released - for now,
2) Aˇnumber of people have expressed interest in contributing some of their time and effort toˇcoding an open source tool,
3) I'm sceptical that the C compiler (in six-or-so months time) is going to do multi-cogging as well as what the current solution does - besides, all the other ImageCraft C compilers appear to be Windows only,
4) From my current understanding of spin (and it's bytecodes) conditional compilation and improved object referencing (Object.Variable) should be possible within the current set of spin bytecodes.ˇThe spin interpreter - in the ROM of the propeller - is DEFINITELY NOT going to change for the current propeller, but that's a good thing. I suspect the new propeller will be source code - and possibly even bytecode - compatable. If each cog had 4kbytes or 8kbytes of RAM, then who knows, maybe the spin bytecodes will run 100 times faster.



▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
It's not all that hard to count the number of grains of sand on the beach. The hardest part is making a start - after that it just takes time.ˇˇ Mirror - 15 May 2007

Harrison.
05-28-2007, 02:28 PM
Asterik supposedly wrote the Gear emulator so it would successfully compile and load on the Mono framework which would mean it would support whatever platforms the Mono framework supports (mac, linux, windows, etc).

I believe open sourcing the IDE probably won't help Parallax's cause other than helping people who will just tweak the IDE so it will load better in emulated environments. The reason is that the core compiler / assembler is supposedly written in x86 assembly which would not be easily portable to other ISAs. Not to mention the x86 assembly is probably highly win32 dependent since it probably needs access to the win32 filesystem and such. If the above is true then anyone who would spend time attempting to port the assembly compiler / assembler to another OS would probably be wasting time.

It would be much easier, as some people have noted, to just write a new compiler from scratch. There already exists a java implementation of the Propeller assembler that works quite well.

Chris Kraft
06-02-2007, 11:49 AM
I too would like to see a the Propeller tools on OS X. Yes I have Parallels, bootcamp and a couple of Windows machines around I can use but I would always choose OS X over any of those others if I had the option.

Personally I don't need the GUI or anything like that. I use TextMate as my code tool and I am happy with that. I also have X Code which is a fine tool.

Mostly what I would like is a way to compile Spin and Prop Assembly code and also upload/program that compiled code onto the Propeller chip.

I agree with the others, I see no reason, if Parallax is not interested in selling software, why they don't open up enough of the code so that those developers, like myself, who are familiar with developing on OS X can build our own tools.

I am very impressed with the Propeller chip and would probably use it more if I could code on OS X. Instead I've been using Atmel chips because I have a full tool chain that lets me write applications in C and compile them and program the Atmel, all without ever having to leave my much beloved OS X.

Please Parallax, give some of us OS X folks a chance. Give out some bits of the code and see if we can put something together for you. Personally I would gladly do the work for free just so that I could have a way of programming the Propeller using my Macbook. I appreciate that you are a small company and short staffed, but I am not asking you to do the coding for me, just to open up enough details so that we can put something together.

And I am sure that this lack of open information does stop some people from using the Propeller. I was talking to a developer who has done some work for Make and Make Faire and he said that he wouldn't look at the Propeller until there were open tools available. I would think that for a small company that is interested in targeting a hobbyist community you would want the best and brightest of those communities behind you and encouraging others to use your products.

potatohead
06-02-2007, 12:18 PM
Agreed Mike.

IMHO, not having the serial communication bits running is not that big of a limitation. I've not setup WINE and probably should. I believe I saw another post where somebody had the IDE running, but could not communicate through it.

Paul Baker
06-05-2007, 05:43 AM
Haikusw, will will not be making our code GPL or any other varient of open source. By doing so we are essentially giving up any control over it's direction and fitness for purpose, and these are two things which are very important to us.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

haikusw
06-06-2007, 10:30 AM
Paul, Thank you for your reply. I am not an expert in open source software, but I think you are under some misconceptions about what making your software open source means. For example, there are many open source software projects to which, as an example, I am not able to contribute code to the main source repository. The project owners are still quite able to control the direction of the software they produce.

As I understand it, and again, I'm not an expert, generally in order to become a "commiter" to an open source project one has to provide "patches" to the forum or to the people in the company who are the project engineers. Once an individual has demonstrated that they can contribute in a quality and professional manner, then they might get commiter permissions. Even then, their changes will likely be reviewed by someone in the company - though once it's open source any changes are reviewed by the community which provides far more review power (eyeballs and talent) at almost no cost to the company.

For example, SUN is putting the java compiler and tools under an open source license, but they are not giving up control of the language. It does not just become a free-for-all where anyone can make changes to the source over time. This is not dissimilar to what I'd propose Parallax consider doing. Likewise for PHP or MySQL or apache or gcc, or any of a long long list of others.

What would be possible for someone, like myself, who might NOT have commiter status to the main source repository, is to download the code and produce a port of the code to Mac OS X, for example. Generally under most open source license terms I could not sell this port, but would have to make it and it's source freely available to all - thus, your company could incorporate those aspects of the port (or the entire thing) into the main repository if you so chose and thus get a port of your software to another platform for free.

The benefit to me of having the company take my work (or the work of myself and many others as is usually the case) is that maintaining the port over time will be easier if the next version produced by the company already has some or all of the changes that make creating the port easier (refactoring etc). In fact, in some cases the port done by one person (or a small group) has become part of the main repository and that port is then maintained by the community at large.

Additionally, by open sourcing your software you allow it to be reviewed by others. You could have from dozens to thousands of talented software engineers review the code, find bugs or security problems, offer optimization suggestions and other improvements, etc all at no cost to you. This actually gives you as a company significant security - consider what would happen if the one or two people currently employed to work on the software (by reports on this forum it's one person) quit, die or otherwise become unable or unwilling to work on the code. This is not a catastrophic problem because the company has a large number of other people already familiar with the code and at least one these people might make an excellent candidate to pick up the project as an employee.

In any case, there are quite a range of open source models under which one may put a code base into the open source state. I would recommend you look to others with more expertise than myself in this area. The Free Software Foundation might be an excellent place to start (http://www.fsf.org). IBM has also done a lot toward making projects open source. For examples of other companies that have gone this route you might check out SUN, Google, and many other smaller companies.

I know that it is often felt that your software is a big part of your value as a company and making it open source decreases this value. I think that your company's value is in the processor itself. The software magnifies this value, but the value of your software is magnified dramatically if it is open source for the following reasons (among others):

1) it is much more likely to get improved and validated by a much larger range of qualified engineers. Imagine what you could do if you hire even 10 talented motivated enthusiastic engineers to work on your software. Making your software open source under the right license and structure for increasing the participation does this and more for you, but at very little cost to your company.

2) I, and others, will have a much greater degree of confidence in your software if it has been reviewed by hundreds, or thousands of other qualified software engineers. That's a level of review many large companies cannot afford.

3) You software can be ported to other operating systems and there are many people who simply have zero desire to work on Windows and will choose an option that doesn't force them to do so. Those are lost sales for your company. Especially if you consider that much innovation is taking place *outside* the center of the technological eco-sphere - those outside the center are likely not running Windows which almost defines the center. The innovators are the prime people you want using your innovative hardware - in part because they'll do the coolest stuff with it (and make you and your hardware look good and thus generate more sales).

4) You will not be so vulnerable as a company. Imagine a virus comes out that takes down all the Windows computers. If mission critical development is going on in a company, they can switch to a linux computer, say, and keep making progress while the IT department gets the Windows computers functional again.

So, if your software magnifies the value of your processor business, and open sourcing access to it magnifies the software, then open sourcing your software is a big win for your company.

Well, I'm not the greatest open source evangelist because I really am too ignorant on it all, but I *am* confident that seriously considering making it so that your company can bring more software engineering resources to your table without costing any or much additional money is likely to be a smart business move for your company. I encourage you to contact some people at IBM or the FSF and speak with them about the options and how it might work for you; or perhaps do some research into other open source models/projects to read their licenses and understand how they have structured their projects/licenses to work best for them. There are many of these on the internet. Perhaps someone else on this forum who has more experience with open source software models can chime in with more educated comments (hopefully in support http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/wink.gif).

Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck and hope that I'll be able to develop for the Propeller on a computer running Mac OS X someday soon.

Paul Baker
06-07-2007, 01:41 AM
We repect the principles of open source and recognize it's value, we just aren't going to release our IDE under it. We having two guiding principles in the company, to release quality products and to provide the best possible support for our products. While we don't charge any money for our software, it is a critical aspect in support of the hardware. Releasing our code under open source would quickly become a nightmare because our customers have come to expect a very high quality of technical support. Trying to keep track of N variations of various open source IDEs in order to answer peoples questions and problems regarding the IDEs would become the full time job of serveral people and we don't have the resources to spend on such an effort. Another issue with releasing it as open source is that people will expect us to fully document the code to explain exactly what is going on and to provide support on the code itself, it is a TINSTAAFL (there is no such thing as a free lunch) situation that we just aren't going to pursue.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

ehdyn
07-20-2007, 03:39 AM
Don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I'd be willing to pay for a Mac(non-int*l) version of Spin. Wanting to make a crazy *** synth with this chip.

Mike Green
07-20-2007, 04:39 AM
You can't afford to pay enough to get a native Mac Spin compiler. The details of the byte code are proprietary to Parallax although much of it has been figured out (for GEAR) already. Parallax has neither the resources nor the interest as has been discussed at length before and no one else is in a position to do it. For such a small market, the cost would be prohibitive for a 3rd party to do it. There is a 3rd party C compiler planned for the beginning of next year, but it produces assembly language, not Spin byte codes. It'll be very useful, but it's not a Spin compiler. It will be Windows-only as well.

wcardoso
07-24-2007, 03:04 AM
Why not propeller guys publish the protocols used to transfer data between PC and the chip ?, and related protocols like the chipID, etc.

These way all us can develop tools in any OS to work with the propeller in our preferred platform.

Paul Baker
07-24-2007, 03:14 AM
The information has been posted and a python based standalone programmer has been created by a customer.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

simonl
07-25-2007, 12:44 AM
I still think Parallax would be better-off creating a cross-platform, standalone, command-line compiler (much like Microchip do) that can be called from any IDE. The compiler should be written in Java, and accept command-line parameters like >pchipcompiler -s <source_file>.

If they split the compiler from the IDE, they'd need to spend less time updating the IDE (which hasn't had an update in ages, due I think to Jeff's time commitments); there will be plenty of other quality IDE's created in a short time IMHO.

This isn't a 'flame', I can work with the IDE as it is, but the cross-platform thing isn't going to go away any-time soon, so I'm offering a potential way forward. (I only wish I had the skills to do it for them...).

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,

Simon
-------------------------------
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk (http://www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk)
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Paul Baker
07-25-2007, 12:58 AM
Please see my post in this thread: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=648778

It's not happening no matter how much people ask. Jeff didn't write the compiler, Chip did. He is also the chip designer, so it'sˇeither he develops the next chip or he works on the compiler. We have already decided his time is better spent developing the next chip.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 7/24/2007 5:04:11 PM GMT

Mike Green
07-25-2007, 01:00 AM
Simon,
This has been discussed ad nauseum. I would love to have (and have previously asked for) a cross-platform "tokenizer" like that available for the Stamps. It's not going to happen, asking Parallax for it won't help, and, with the ready availability of Intel Macs and virtualizing software that allows execution of Windows under the Mac OS and Linux, there's even less incentive to provide it. The compiler is written in Intel assembler with Windows I/O calls and it would take a rewrite from scratch to make it platform independent. Parallax considers the compiler and the Spin byte code definitions as proprietary and simply not available, let alone not having the resources with the knowledge and time (aka Chip) to document it. There are compiler writing tools out there, yet it's a lot of work to actually do it, even with the best of tools and complete documentation on the "object machine". The only reason we'll be getting a C compiler for the Propeller is that ImageCraft has a stable, adaptable C compiler that can be be relatively easily adapted for the Large Memory Model assembly code for the Propeller.

BipedPete
07-25-2007, 01:41 AM
Yeah, all I own is an iMac. I would like to see some Mac compiler. Not just for propellers but also for most robotics-type processors.

But thanks for the Guest PC link. I am intending to get it soon. (Meaning when spare cash floats by)

Fred Hawkins
07-25-2007, 04:50 AM
Thought balloon: "It's important to keep the riffraff out. If they can't find a cheap Windows laptop, boat anchor or an ersatz substitue, let em drool at the window."

Beanie2k
07-25-2007, 04:57 AM
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
... it's either he develops the next chip or he works on the compiler. We have already decided his time is better spent developing the next chip.


Put my vote with the new Prop chip http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/yeah.gif . Besides isn't the new prop supposed to have all the development tools embedded in it, making it platform-independent? If so, that would really be cool! http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/scool.gif

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
07-25-2007, 05:35 AM
Personally, I'd hate to see any precious silicon in Prop2 taken up with firmware that's used only during development. Plus, embedded development tools are much harder to modify and extend. My vote would be for platform-independent cross development tools with hooks that facilitate user-extendability.

I use Windows XP now, but I won't be upgrading to Vista or buying a new computer with Vista installed. Anything new will be running either Linux or OS/X. I'm sure I'm not alone.

-Phil

parts-man73
07-26-2007, 04:41 AM
Here's some interesting statistics that play into this discussion.

The hosting company that I use for my Propeller related website provides statistics about the people that visit my site. It gathers data on (among other things) what type of OS the visitor is using.

Keep in mind that this is by no means a scientific poll, but since my website is only of interest to Propeller users, the data is relevant.

Windows XP users - 78.8 %
Windows Vista - 8%
Linux - 6.5%
MacOS - 4.6%
Windows 2000 - 4.6%

and others including Windows 98, Windows Server 2003 and Windows NT are 1% each or less


So the 2 OS's that the Propeller tool will work on(without resorting to WINE, or other emulators) cover approximately 86% of Propeller users (XP and Vista) That is obviously where a bulk of Parallax's resources must be spent.

Just so you know, I am not biased. I have 5 computers at home, 2 of them run Ubuntu Linux.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Brian

uController.com (http://uController.com) - home of SpinStudio

evanh
07-28-2007, 11:57 PM
Win95/98/me are fine once stripped of the internet suite but for security reasons I'd never use Win2k/xp/vista. The OS itself is the problem, not what hardware I happen to own.

To put it simply, if Wine can't run the development software then I won't be using it.


Evan

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 12:02 AM
Well then you will be missing out..

If its a security issue - why not strip an xp install of everything you don't want and run it stand alone with no internet connection..

QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:09 AM
That said, I'd definitely entertain the idea of self hosted development with file transfer ability for backups and documenting. Is this already an option? I've not read enough yet...

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 12:13 AM
Chip Gracey (Parallax) said...



That bigger ROM is going to be used, eventually, for sinking the entire development system into. This way, we can finally get OFF the PC for good, if we want to...


Have a read of this thread..

http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=617536

Regards,
QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:13 AM
QuattroRS4 said...
Well then you will be missing out..


So be it.

[quote]If its a security issue - why not strip an xp install of everything you don't want and run it stand alone with no internet connection..

Doesn't work that way. I've tried. Even something as trivial as the control panel fails to load.

Mike Green
07-29-2007, 12:16 AM
If you only are willing to use Wine, then I guess you won't be doing any Spin development (and that will very much limit your ability to take advantage of what others have done so far in terms of existing and future contributed code). If you can get Cliff Biffle's assembler to run, then you could use that for some Propeller work. Eventually some of the Forth implementations for the Prop will get beyond the experimental stage and you could certainly use one of those. There will be a C compiler this Winter, but it will only run under Windows. You could ask them (ImageCraft) if their compilers have been run under Wine and Linux.

I did have a little luck compiling programs using CrossOver Mac from CodeWeavers which is an enhanced commercial version of Wine. There were some bugs in opening up source folders, but if I ignored them and continued, I was able to compile one or two things. I'm sure the download I/O won't work, but there are separate download programs, like the one in Python, that work under Linux and you can save the binary file after compilation. It's awkward, but probably usable. There is a CrossOver Linux that probably works the same.

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 12:19 AM
evanh said...
Doesn't work that way. I've tried. Even something as trivial as the control panel fails to load


not so ..

I have stripped out full installs to the bare minimum - quite successfully- obviously windows file protection(WFP) has to be disabledˇ ..ever before XP embedded became main stream..

It seems that you are putting up an artificial wall here ...

QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

Post Edited (QuattroRS4) : 7/28/2007 5:09:42 PM GMT

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:19 AM
QuattroRS4 said...
That bigger ROM is going to be used, eventually, for sinking the entire development system into. This way, we can finally get OFF the PC for good, if we want to...

What about now? Is there a simple version in the smaller ROM?

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:23 AM
QuattroRS4 said...

evanh said...
Doesn't work that way. I've tried. Even something as trivial as the control panel fails to load

It seems that you are putting up an artificial wall here ...

Hmm, I did try. I think you are making it sound too simple.

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:26 AM
Mike Green said...
If you only are willing to use Wine, then I guess you won't be doing any Spin development ...

Why not? I would expect all coding facilities to be available.

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 12:26 AM
Evanh - its not that I am making it sound too simple .. it can be time consuming .. but worth the effort.

edit: with regard to your reply to Mike .. as it is not its native environment .. issues will be the Rule rather than the exception ..

QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

Post Edited (QuattroRS4) : 7/28/2007 4:31:11 PM GMT

Mike Green
07-29-2007, 12:28 AM
No. There is no development system for Spin or assembler that runs on the Propeller.

You could try running Windows XP under one of the virtualization systems like VMWare and MacOSX. You can easily disable the virtual internet I/O completely, yet copy files back and forth between Windows and the Mac filesystem giving you complete control over Windows' access to the "outside world".

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 12:30 AM
Mike,
Good point there ... all possible angles covered ..

QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

Mike Green
07-29-2007, 12:38 AM
Evanh,
You really have only one choice if you want to do Propeller development with tools supported by Parallax and that's to use Windows XP or Vista. Complaining about it won't change it.

There are a variety of other choices that are not supported by Parallax and that all have various disadvantages and have been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere. All of them require extra work or expense on your part and can't do some things. Tough!

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:41 AM
Well, now, there is one artifical wall on that front - paying for bad software that I have no interest in and certainly don't want to give my money to company that makes said bad software .... or "pirating" it.

evanh
07-29-2007, 12:43 AM
Until the self-hosting is done then tough it is.

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 12:48 AM
Evanh,
I take it you will not be posting code for a while then !

You posted in the '...more cogs or ram' thread - 'making the Hub's round robin indexing engine smarter might be in order also.'
Just wondering how you came to this conclusion - without an IDE install on windows ??
Or was it from reading the specs .. in other words did you come accross something that you came to this conclusion ??

Regards,
QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

Post Edited (QuattroRS4) : 7/28/2007 5:11:22 PM GMT

evanh
07-29-2007, 01:51 AM
QuattroRS4 said...
Or was it from reading the specs .. in other words did you come accross something that you came to this conclusion ??

I had a few questions that I search for and got the answers to (forgotten what they were) and read the specs a little also. The fact that that thread was still active was the reason I posted at all. There was more than one conversation I noted covering the number of cycles each Cog has to wait to get access to the Hub. This was of interest to me also.

evanh
07-29-2007, 02:00 AM
Btw: Necessity is the mother of commerce. Inventions are a dime a dozen.

QuattroRS4
07-29-2007, 02:23 AM
lol.
- anyhow welcome aboard - a busy first day for you !

QuattroRS4

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'

evanh
07-29-2007, 02:37 AM
:)

6:38 AM Sunday. I should prolly go home and stop the video recorder from running out of disc space.

hinv
08-06-2007, 01:34 PM
partsman,

Your statistics are biased. Since I am mostly a IRIX/Linux user, I browse the web mostly on those two operating systems. However, when I play arround with the prop, I boot my notebook into WindowsXP because until today, I did not have any tools working on Linux to use. So even when I read the blogs, until today, I mostly used WindowsXP when doing anything propeller. Even blogging was a hassle on the Linux side because I would find to be a hassle because I would find attachments that I would want to save and look at, which required Windows. So propeller users are forced into Windows, and therefor statistics about propeller web sites is useless. It's like saying quantanamo inmates like orange because that's all we see them wearing!

Just my 10 bits.

Post Edited (hinv) : 8/6/2007 2:34:33 PM GMT

SSteve
08-06-2007, 01:39 PM
Mike Green said...
You really have only one choice if you want to do Propeller development with tools supported by Parallax and that's to use Windows XP or Vista.

Win2k still works too, luckily for me. I don't think my long-in-the-tooth laptop would run XP. Definitely not Vista.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
OS-X: because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows

links:
My band's website (http://www.theuniversalsteve.com)
Our album on the iTunes Music Store (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=84780626&id=84781354)

Beanie2k
08-06-2007, 02:01 PM
I am just grateful that Parallax makes the full development suite available for free, even if it requires Winx. A few years ago I attended one of those "<chip number> Day" seminars put on with much fanfare by ..ahem... another company. Yes, they gave you a chip plus a neat little USB programmer for free, then gave you a totally crippled, lamed over development package that you still had to sign over your first - born in the EULA to legally use. The full (read "useable") development package was available of course, for a mere $1400USD. When someone (not me) asked about this, the rep said "Oh, but you can amortize the cost of the IDE over the thousands of products you sell". That may be true if you're putting their chip into a toaster or vacuum cleaner that you are going to make thousands of, but in my job we are lucky to make a dozen of something I design, so this business model just doesn't work. Unfortunately, it does seem to be the model followed by most micro and other programmable chip suppliers. Oh, by the way, their crippled, lamed over development package also required Winx to run.

Post Edited (Beanie2k) : 8/6/2007 6:08:05 AM GMT

evanh
08-06-2007, 06:42 PM
Beanie2k said...
I am just grateful that Parallax makes the full development suite available for free,..

That's a bit of stupid one. There wouldn't be anyone on the forums if it had a price tag on it. I think you made the very point that was key to charging for a dev kit - It's targeted at mass producers and they really don't care about anyone else.

It's still interesting to note the Propeller's lock-in to Win2k and greater for no apparent reason. :/ Modern windoze compilers should have no problem producing win3.1 executables for apps that don't need anything more.

Beanie2k
08-06-2007, 11:32 PM
evanh said...

That's a bit of stupid one. ...


You don't say? I think I understand now why pleas for cross-platform development solutions are going unanswered by Parallax, and why they might continue to go unanswered.

Have fun.

Mike Green
08-06-2007, 11:45 PM
The reasons for using Win2K/XP/Vista have been stated before in that Microsoft has provided new API calls in Win2K and subsequent versions of Windows and, to provide IDE functionality, Parallax has used these API calls that don't exist in previous Windows versions. Just like the decision to write the Spin compiler in assembly, the decision to support only Win2K and beyond has consequences, but was Parallax's to make and we do have the Propeller and a very servicible (for most customers) compiler/assembler/IDE.

Paul Baker
08-07-2007, 04:01 AM
One key point is Unicode wasn't fully implemented before Windows 2000, so there are issues with using the Parallax font. There's also the issue with the API's being seriously outdated. But the number 1 reason is Microsoft itself does not provide any support for systems before Windows 2000, therefore we cannot receive any support for legacy systems we would need to keep around to check for compatibility. It has been nearly a decade since Windows 98, considering complete systems loaded with a modern OS can be had for less than $400, it's not reasonable to expect software providers to maintain backwards compatability with obsolete OS's.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 8/6/2007 8:11:56 PM GMT

evanh
08-07-2007, 06:20 AM
Beanie2k said...
I think I understand now why pleas for cross-platform development solutions are going unanswered...

Well, clearly it goes way beyond any development platforms. This includes all types of application written for windoze. The annoyance you are picking up is that which comes of the lock-in process itself. Forcing people to upgrade then saying "Oh, there is no one left using the previous version - no need to support it any longer..."

I understand the practicalities of these lock-ins so I'll drop the subject now, I know the argument is pointless and will continue being so for future windoze releases also. There is no choice.

Fred Hawkins
08-07-2007, 06:40 AM
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
complete systems loaded with a modern OS can be had for less than $400, it's not reasonable to expect software providers to maintain backwards compatability with obsolete OS's.


I agree. I have an cheap xp laptop that I use for the propeller ide, this forum, and pictures. It works fine from the first time without fiddling. I don't love it, but it's a tool that works.

mirror
08-07-2007, 06:58 AM
Fred Hawkins said...

Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
complete systems loaded with a modern OS can be had for less than $400, it's not reasonable to expect software providers to maintain backwards compatability with obsolete OS's.


I agree. I have an cheap xp laptop that I use for the propeller ide, this forum, and pictures. It works fine from the first time without fiddling. I don't love it, but it's a tool that works.


I have a cheap PC running Linux. Sometimes I look at it for a couple of days, then I go back to using my main Windows XP machine - because it's a tool that works.

Mind you, over the last couple of weeks I've started getting increasingly interested in Lua and Python - and either of them seem like they'd be fairly good forˇdeveloping cross-platform apps.
ˇ

Larry
08-07-2007, 08:22 AM
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...

complete systems loaded with a modern OS can be had for less than $400, it's not reasonable to expect software providers to maintain backwards compatability with obsolete OS's.


Well, maybe that's true, but I'd rather spend my $400 discretionary income on Parallax products. It just bugs me that I have to spend money on a product I don't want to use a product I do want.

hippy
08-07-2007, 08:46 AM
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
It has been nearly a decade since Windows 98, considering complete systems loaded with a modern OS can be had for less than $400, it's not reasonable to expect software providers to maintain backwards compatability with obsolete OS's.

From the other side of the fence, from the user's perspective, it can be argued that it is reasonable to expect support for older OS's. Especially when it is possible to write code which runs on the entire 32-bit range of OS's whether obsolete or not, and many vendors do.

It's this opposing viewpoint which keeps causing the issue to re-surface.

It seems to me that Parallax chose to use the latest whiz-bang API and code in assembler and this has dictated what OS has to be used, and fair enough, that's Parallax's decision, but I am at a loss to fully understand why such things were done that way. The Propeller Tool is after all just another IDE and many others run on Win 95 upwards just fine, Spin doesn't seem that incredibly complex that it needs a finely tuned parsing engine written in assembler to do its job on a modern, fast PC. I'll however accept that it can be like working with one hand tied behind one's back to forego the new trickery a latest OS can give to ensure interoperability with older OS's which do not have the same functionality ( as per the Unicode issue ), but one could ask, is it really necessary - would older OS compatibility have been better instead ?

It's a completely moot question now ( no matter how many are asking, no matter how many may think Parallax got it wrong ), because it's a done deal. Unless Parallax change tack, the course is set, and the only realisable option to using the Propeller Tool on Win XP is for people to write their own development tools from the ground-up. If that happens, that is an alternative option for use. Until then, the world is as it is.

I don't see this issue ever going away as many new to the Propeller who expect their older OS to be supported will ask why it isn't. Perhaps we need a sticky or a published explanation which clearly states why Parallax chose how they did, and addresses the questions people do have ? Convince them the decision was rational, reasonable and necessary and people will hopefully be happy and accept Parallax's case.

Unfortunately the it's not unreasonable to expect a user to upgrade their OS, perhaps buy a new motherboard or system ( and all the software they need for that OS ) to use the Propeller doesn't feel satisfactory to me; it has that dictatorial air of you'll use what we decide you'll use, not what you want to use which we are more frequently used to hearing from people who obsolete their OS's with little apparant care for their customers.


Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
But the number 1 reason is Microsoft itself does not provide any support for systems before Windows 2000, therefore we cannot receive any support for legacy systems we would need to keep around to check for compatibility.

I'm afraid I think that's a red-herring. That M$ have obsoleted the OS's does not mean you cannott keep those platforms around for checking compatibility and try to achieve it best you can. I can see no problem with the Propeller Tool being guaranteed for Win XP, Vista and whatever comes with support for others being 'the best we could manage'. As long as the tool runs and necessary functionality is there the end-user can make that call, accept a non-supported version, or use Win XP and get support. As it is, users do not get even that choice.

Post Edited (hippy) : 8/7/2007 1:10:14 AM GMT

rjo_
08-07-2007, 10:34 AM
I once had a staff... bigger than Parallax's... and I can't imagine how they get done what they are doing.
Where's the beef? I'm a Mac guy. If Parallax could trust Apple... and if Apple would come up with the bucks... it could happen. But I really don't care.

The only thing I would really want is a mac loader I can understand well enough to script and a com line out of ImageJ. That for me solves all my problems... then all I would need is a library of binaries and be able to download, configure and run them.
There are guys with the talent looking at it. When the market is there... the products will be there and they won't be free.

I don't fear anything. I'm standing next to the mountain... looking up... and all is well in the Parallax Universe of Possibilities.

The only thing I want Chip to think about is the smoothest, shortest path to his new hardware... everyone else can spit if they want. It won't do anything.

And eventually we will have everything running on a Prop anyway... so what's the worry?

Rich

Paul Baker
08-07-2007, 01:40 PM
We deeply regret that some of our decisions wrt the Tool have upset some of our customers, but the decisions have been made and we are not likely to revisit them.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker (mailto:pbaker@parallax.com)
Propeller Applications Engineer
[/url][url=http://www.parallax.com] (http://www.parallax.com)
Parallax, Inc. (http://www.parallax.com)

Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 8/7/2007 5:49:19 AM GMT

Ale
08-07-2007, 05:18 PM
We have many things from Parallax: good hard, useful soft, great and helping staff. More than others give. But they do no provide evrything we can hope for (and they don't aim for).

What we have so far:

PropellerTool (winblows)

Gear (winblows)
propasm (java)
hippys' latest creation, the spin/asm disassembler http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif, (winblows)
proploader (Phyton)
my modest pPropellerSim (java)
<everything I don't know of, or I forgot>

Some of these functionalities were not available from Parallax, but the community provided.

We should get over the Propeller Tool not working on Platform X (tm :P) and concentrate in creating/building/designing the tools we want/need.

What they provide works. That is a very strong point, and an useful one.

A Spin compiler is comming, no doubt. More diffciult things were done (gcc for instance), May be is not so nicely integrated as the Propeller Tool, but with for instance, Eclipse and Netbeans available, some plugins can be "easily" created to provide the functionality we want/need. The Information is out there, we have now to gather it in something good/functional/useful and stop weening, that will help as all as a community and will help others to discover the power a well programmed (with nice tools :P)
propeller can deliver.

http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/turn.gif http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/yeah.gif

Harley
08-07-2007, 11:33 PM
Well said Ale,

I too am a Mac user (older graphite colored Imac) who 'wishes' for an all Mac environment. But then I would have to have Microchip also change so I could support some PIC projects.

Of course, there is the Intel iMac which could work. But then that is still Windows with either BootCamp or Parallels or other.

So years ago I got a PC laptop to satisfy the PIC and now Prop needs. Not optimum, but workable. "Windows, grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!" Not a fun machine.

And now am able to enjoy the Propeller. Love that IC, love that chip/Chip.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Harley Shanko
h.a.s. designn