Should Parallax Sell an SX Replacement?
Dave Hein
Posts: 6,347
I understand Parallax's reasons for dropping the SX.· However, I don't understand why Parallax hasn't partnered with a PIC chip manufacturer to provide a replacement.· The reasons I use the SX is because of the support Parallax provides.· I started with the Basic Stamp, and then moved over to the SX when I saw it's capabilities.· I needed the ability to use interrupts, and the SX provided that feature.
The SX/B language made it easy to transistion from the Basic Stamp to the SX.· I pretty much write everything in SX assembly now, but I still use the SX/B to generate reference code when needed.
I like the simplicity of the SX.· For some applications I can use the internal clock generator, and the only external component I need is a pull-up resistor for the reset line.· The SX-Key is a great device, and I normally add a 4-pin header to my projects so I can reprogram the SX in-circuit.
The Prop has too large of a footprint for most of my applications.· I normally use SX18 chips for my projects.· I have a small supply of these chips and the SX28 chips that will serve my needs for a few years.· Personally, the SX EOL won't affect me too much.· This is probably true of most of the hobbyist that use the SX.· Of course, I'll be in trouble if my SX-Key breaks before I run out of SX chips.
The biggest problem will be for people that use the SX chip in their products.··Chip suppliers normally have a replacement chip for the part that they EOL.· In this case, Parallax has no such part.· Manufacturers will have to·buy enough·SX chips to support their products until they can redesign them to use PIC chips.
Over the next few years Parallax will lose their pools of SX customers.· This may not be a large pool of customers, but we do buy other parts from Parallax.· In my case I have bought voltage regulators, EEPROMs, Accelerometers, A/D converters, and other components· from Parallax.· I could have bought these components from other sources, but the one-stop shopping made it easier.· If I need to switch to the PIC processor, then I might as well get my other parts from that source as well.
This is why I would encourage Parallax to resell PIC parts that provide capability that is similar to the SX.· I would also encourage Parallax to provide an SX/B-like enviroment for a PIC chip.·· This way customers could continue to do their one-stop shopping for their projects at Parallax.
To the Parallax management, my views are just the opinion of one customer.· Other customers may have other opinions.· The EOL of the SX causes me little hassle or frustration.·· However, I like doing business with Parallax.·· I have been looking at the Prop for some of my more complex projects.· It would be nice if Parallax could provide a replacement for the SX for smaller projects.
Thanks,
Dave Hein
Post Edited (Dave Hein) : 9/20/2009 8:07:24 PM GMT
The SX/B language made it easy to transistion from the Basic Stamp to the SX.· I pretty much write everything in SX assembly now, but I still use the SX/B to generate reference code when needed.
I like the simplicity of the SX.· For some applications I can use the internal clock generator, and the only external component I need is a pull-up resistor for the reset line.· The SX-Key is a great device, and I normally add a 4-pin header to my projects so I can reprogram the SX in-circuit.
The Prop has too large of a footprint for most of my applications.· I normally use SX18 chips for my projects.· I have a small supply of these chips and the SX28 chips that will serve my needs for a few years.· Personally, the SX EOL won't affect me too much.· This is probably true of most of the hobbyist that use the SX.· Of course, I'll be in trouble if my SX-Key breaks before I run out of SX chips.
The biggest problem will be for people that use the SX chip in their products.··Chip suppliers normally have a replacement chip for the part that they EOL.· In this case, Parallax has no such part.· Manufacturers will have to·buy enough·SX chips to support their products until they can redesign them to use PIC chips.
Over the next few years Parallax will lose their pools of SX customers.· This may not be a large pool of customers, but we do buy other parts from Parallax.· In my case I have bought voltage regulators, EEPROMs, Accelerometers, A/D converters, and other components· from Parallax.· I could have bought these components from other sources, but the one-stop shopping made it easier.· If I need to switch to the PIC processor, then I might as well get my other parts from that source as well.
This is why I would encourage Parallax to resell PIC parts that provide capability that is similar to the SX.· I would also encourage Parallax to provide an SX/B-like enviroment for a PIC chip.·· This way customers could continue to do their one-stop shopping for their projects at Parallax.
To the Parallax management, my views are just the opinion of one customer.· Other customers may have other opinions.· The EOL of the SX causes me little hassle or frustration.·· However, I like doing business with Parallax.·· I have been looking at the Prop for some of my more complex projects.· It would be nice if Parallax could provide a replacement for the SX for smaller projects.
Thanks,
Dave Hein
Post Edited (Dave Hein) : 9/20/2009 8:07:24 PM GMT
Comments
Dave
The SX uses 1 clockcycle per instruction, and @50MHz that means 50 MIPS.
PIC uses 4 clockcycles per instruction, and @20MHz that means 5 MIPS.
(do you know any small dip package PIC that runs @50MHz ?)
Closest replacement would be ATtiny, 1 clockcycle per instruction, 20MHz,
so those are closest to SX @20MHz.
regards peter
The problem with producing a free compiler for a chip you don't own, is that people are free to buy the chip from anyone.
Providing support for a free compiler and inexpensive tools simply doesn't work when you don't own the silicon.
Peter
The dspic family is a 1 clock/instruction like the avr. 40 Mhz = 40 mips with the same exceptions as the avr. Whats more, it's 16 bits.
I would not be surprised if it held its' own against the sx in most general purpose apps. Add minimal dsp requirments and the race is over before it starts. And it's cheap. Look at this page as an example.
http://www.microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/chart.aspx?branchID=8154&mid=14&lang=en&pageId=75
Now, if Bean could use the experience gained from SX/B to produce a non free compiler for the dspic...
Rick
Post Edited (RickB) : 8/6/2009 3:28:04 PM GMT
www.geocities.com/leon_heller/dsPIC33FJ12.html
It's intended for making at home.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Thanks for the pointer on changing the subject line.· A lot of forums don't allow changing the subject line, so I assumed this one didn't either.
I haven't really researched other processors much, so I'm not aware of the pros and cons of the PIC versus the SX.· Rick, I have heard about the 16-bit PICs, and I think there are even some chips with hardware multipliers.· I'm a little hesitant to discuss the features of other chips in this forum, but it seems like Parallax should have already done this homework, and they should be able to choose a replacement.
I think a free xxx/B compiler would be advantages to Parallax.· That is one of the features that helped me transistion to from the Stamp to the SX.· Even though it could be used by non-Parallax customers as well, it might convert them into Parallax customers.
Dave
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 8/6/2009 4:16:33 PM GMT
I hear you loud and clear. I'll answer your question.
The short answer is that a company of our size (~40 people) can do only several things well, or do everything all at once but quite poorly. Over our 20+ year history we have used both business models but we return to supporting a small product line and trying to do it very well. In the case of the PIC, there's no additional profit to be made for Parallax since we would only sell programming and debugging tools (okay, some chips too). Many suppliers are already in that market, and it's not interesting to us. We've made the first 3rd party PIC programmer and debuggers; they've both been discontinued many years ago due to support considerations and lack of return.
Now we have the Propeller and the BASIC Stamp -- two systems we've created and we own the entire product line. Between this hardware and all of the neat programs, kits and hardware that surrounds them we have our hands full. We'll be showing how a BASIC Stamp user can jump to the Propeller, too. In fact, it's already easy with the PE Kit labs (free download) yet we'll make it even easier. Come on over and check out the Prop!
Keep in mind we're manufacturing the lines we support. In Rocklin we put around 10-20K products per month through our SMT line and 1K+ through a CNC mill. In China we are doing the same (mostly through-hole) with our own company and staff. You'd be amazed at the demands the manufacturing adds when you're talking adding new product lines. The fixed cost of supporting a PIC chip (with tools, or applications) is simply not worth the NRE.
Most of our customers use the BASIC Stamp and Propeller, and the customer requests we receive related to those products outnumber the SX 100 to 1.
As for the EOL, it is primarily intended for the production user as a warning that they will need to redesign at some point. If you want to keep working with the SX, please do. We've got plenty of chips in stock and a lifetime supply to be placed on order in September. If your applications are of personal interest or hobby, you could be set for life with a few rails of chips and a box of boards from Parallax. We're making accommodations to have tools and boards as long as the chip supply lasts.
We'll support anything you buy from us whether or not you use it with a Parallax processor or a PIC.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
I liked what you said about the Propeller and I once owned a Hydra but found SPIN difficult to pick up as I was focused on SX/B at the time and seemed much like C which I was not a C programmer at the time. I started to learn C for the AVR but very much a beginner. The AVR was a·boss mandated idea as I would have stuck with the SX48 and SX/B (Go with what you know). I do not like C and more comfortable with SX/B.
I understand that there are some variants of BASIC available for the Propeller but as I have not looked lately, do not know if they are as robust as SX/B is.
With this new EOL event of the SX line, it would be very nice and turn so many more customers onto the Propeller if there was an Propeller BASIC as good as SX/B is. My guess is that this is not in Parallax's plans to do such from past threads I have read. But perhaps now it is a good one to go forth with. I would certainly use the Propeller if there was a robust BASIC like SX/B for the Propeller.
Thanks for listening.
PS: I have·a new·design that has 1 master sX28 and 10 slave sx28s on a single PCB so I will have to think about redesign at some point - I would go with the Propeller if I had a good BASIC to use. Hint.
Post Edited (T&E Engineer) : 8/6/2009 5:53:13 PM GMT
We're all ears on the requests.
About a PBASIC compiler for Spin. If it were designed for PBASIC users to go to the Propeller then it could be quite limiting. It wouldn't take many single-threaded examples in PBASIC before the programmer was limited by the BASIC language and didn't get access to the Propeller's real features. All of the objects are written in Spin or ASM, too, complicating matters. Such a compiler could be an introduction to the Prop, though. As a BASIC Stamp programmer we think about one thing at a time, living in a single file. In the Propeller you've got handfuls of BASIC Stamps with shared memory, sharing pins and all running concurrently! By the time you code this in PBASIC you should have used the language that was designed for the Prop (Spin).
I'm a BASIC Stamp programmer and I learned enough of the Propeller in a few days to exceed what could be done in a BASIC Stamp. I haven't picked up a BASIC Stamp since then. Andy's tutorials are a great start yet there's more on the way. We're working on a "show me" guide that compares PBASIC examples to a Spin equivalent, for example.
Spin is like BASIC, or maybe even C. It's not difficult to learn if I was able to do it. I get to program our products less than 4-5x a year and I'm not half as bright as most of our forum members.
I've seen you learn SX/B from a distance and enough of the SX architecture to know that you'd be fine with the Prop. If you need encouragement, you got it. Come check it out. The forum is really active and people are friendly.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
Please pardon me in advance.
BASIC for the Prop need not be any more like PBasic than SX/B is like PBasic. BASIC for the Prop just needs to be BASIC-like. There are so many versions of BASIC that it would be hard (impossible?) to count them. Yet, anyone familiar with BASIC can quickly pick up a new version of the language. SX/B introduced new features and lacked some features of PBasic, but it was dirt simple for a PBasic or a BASIC programmer to pick up.
Prop-BASIC could be the same. There would be many statements that any BASIC programmer would recognize. There would be statements that PBasic programmers would recognize. And, there would be statements that one may have to learn due to the added capability of the Propeller. All that is necessary for these added statements is that they be BASIC-like.
In my opinion, SX/B is not a transistion from PBasic. SX/B is simply a language that has some PBasic similarity, but is really just another version of BASIC. Prop-Basic does not have to be a transition from PBasic. It just needs to be another version of BASIC that, like SX/B, has statements that take advantage of the microcontroller.
I know I am beating a dead-horse, but the idea that several hundred (a few thousand?) Spin or Prop assembler programmers will provide Parallax with the vast market potential available if a Prop-Basic existed is simply ludicrous. I am very open to any fault in my reasoning and would welcome its exposure. If there is any reason Parallax wants to promote the Propeller sans BASIC, it must be some business reason that is none of my business.
Respectully,
--Bill
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
You are what you write.
For me, programming is more about logic than language -- that said, we use language to express a program's logic. Like many, I grew up on BASIC and have used it personally and professionally for almost 30 years. Still, BASIC is just a language and the programmer in me (and you!) is capable of becoming multilingual.
Ken asked me to work with him on a "PBASIC to Spin" guide to help PBASIC programmers -- especially those that are casual programmers -- make the transition a little easier. Mind you, we just started this project on Monday so we've barely fired up the word processor. That said, I've attached a couple sample pages to give you an idea and to show you that there are some direct links between PBASIC and Spin, and where there isn't we have the option of creating them.
Learning Spin (and PASM, for that matter) does not require a gigantic investment in time or major shift in thinking (programming logic remains what it is). Why not start now? If a PBASIC compiler for the Propeller ever does show up you haven't lost anything, in fact you've gained experience working with the chip that will let you get the most out of any compiler product.
Post Edited (JonnyMac) : 8/7/2009 7:31:23 PM GMT
But I don't·agree with the idea or concept of·more Pbasic, SXB or any other Basic compilers. Lots of us grew up using Quick Basic and others, but that language is now archaic. For a long time now, (as you already know), C & C++ is what is taught in schools.
Perception is·a problem·for new customers to Parallax with independant languages like·Spin, Pbasic, SXB or any other Basic-C mixture. The perception of learning a new language or spending the time to do so, however simple it is, is a problem.
In the "Spirit of Previous Parallax Products", I believe converting the Pbasic IDE into a "C" or eventually a "C++"·IDE for the·Spin Stamp , using the command set of a BS2-SX or BS2-P series would lead to future product growth for Parallax.·It would be easy, familar to students of "C or C++"·and powerful like Pbasic is.
I know this is a huge step in a different direction, and I realize all the support it would require to make·such a change, may be to great for a small company like Parallax. But I thought it was a good idea, I'm sure it's someting along the line of what·has been dicussed many times before.
Sorry for the "Left turn" in this thread"
Bill M.
Post Edited (Capt. Quirk) : 8/7/2009 7:30:02 PM GMT
Your pages look good, as usual.
I will doubtless move to the Propeller, Spin, PASM. Actually, since I am (very) old assembly programmer, I might give PASM a whirl sooner rather than later. Additionally, I will stick with the SX. After reading everything Ken and everyone else had to say, I am confident that it will be around for quite a while. So, I am depending on your SX/B book, as well! [noparse]:)[/noparse]
By the way, I sure would appreciate it if you took a look at my last post under the sticky Try the SX/B 2.0 Public Beta NOW!! 2.00.30 July 31, 2009.
Parallax provides what I need most and it is not the hardware . . . it is the support. That support includes the inner Parallax team, the "outer" team (folks like you, Bean, and doubtless many others of whom I am not aware), and the forums. You simply cannot beat a deal like that.
--Bill
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
You are what you write.
Do give PASM a try -- it's a lot of fun and the ability to control the C and Z flags use is a joy an allows one to program with fewer jumps -- nearly an if-then-else construct. For example, here's a bit of code from an RGB LED controller:
red test rlevel, rlevel wz ' test level for zero if_z andn outa, rmask ' if 0, turn led off if_z jmp #green cmp cycle, rlevel wc ' check pwm level if_b or outa, rmask ' if still on, enable led if_ae andn outa, rmask ' else disableTranslating to BASIC:
Red: IF rlevel = 0 THEN RedLed = IsOff ELSE IF cycle < rlevel THEN RedLed = IsOn ELSE RedLed = IsOff ENDIF ENDIF Green:-- in my mind, the PASM code is cleaner than the "nice" BASIC!
Post Edited (JonnyMac) : 8/7/2009 7:45:49 PM GMT
Always be yourself and nobody else! I appreciate what you're saying and we're mostly in agreement on the issue.
I agree that SX/B is a language similar to PBASIC, but is also another version of BASIC that was customized to fit the SX between Jonny Mac, Bean, Guenther, Peter + Peter, and the forum users. And there's no reason that a Prop BASIC need to closely reflect a BASIC Stamp BASIC. BASIC is a language that would open the doors to the Propeller for so many people, including the massive number of PBASIC programmers we've developed through the years.
And I agree that Parallax and our customers would benefit from such a compiler.
I'll share our current approach towards the imaginary PropBASIC product at the moment. As a company we've considered and discussed this kind of project several times. On staff we have up to two people who could do the compiler work, yet these people are working on projects related to Propeller 2. We still have some Propeller IDE improvements to make before we had resources available to write a compiler. We don't easily hire these kinds of positions at Parallax - at least in our history the people who can do these jobs have come up in the company for several years. We've got some really good engineers on the team other than the guys who could write compilers, but they're dedicated to PropScopes, WiFi BOEs, and some sensors.
Therefore, we're looking towards our community to help us on this one, much like Bean did with the SX (and you were happy with his efforts, right?). The Propeller has had no shortage of tool developers, ViewPort, compiler efforts, FemtoBasic, multi-OS IDEs, etc. The SX has had less a quarter of these external (community-driven) efforts we've already seen for the Propeller. Somebody, somewhere, somehow will provide a BASIC => Spin or ASM tool to ease the entry into the Propeller for many people. And whoever succeeds will hopefully have a business arrangement with Parallax so we could distribute that compiler as part of the Prop IDE -- for free. At this point, I think the user community has a better chance to make this happen than Parallax. I'm personally aware of three PropBASIC efforts out there right now. Not sure how they would handle the complexities of the objects written in Spin/ASM. I'd imagine that this tool would be fairly light-duty in features, mostly creating a top-level file in Spin.
Secretly, out of the view of our customers, I'm hoping that people pick up our resources and give Spin a chance. Chip says he could describe the simplicity of the whole language in 20 pages. . .but he doesn't really like to write.
The efforts we ARE taking are what Jonny Mac mentioned above - a tutorial showing PBASIC to Spin examples. While we develop this effort perhaps we will see some compiler progress. Jonny Mac has delivered successfully for Parallax many times. . . especially when his heart is in the project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
It all sounds exciting to me. Plus, using all those cogs in place of interrupts is very similar to what I did with my BS2p40 master and four OEM-BS2 slaves. The Prop is SO much faster, though. But, I will miss all those I/O pins!
--Bill
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
You are what you write.
From what I can gather, it appears that the SX will be available for a few more years.· When the SX runs out Parallax will be completely out of the 8-bit microcontroller business.· With all the competition in this segment of the market it seems like Parallax made a reasonable business decision.
The Prop is a nice chip, but it is not a good replacement for the SX in most applications.· It has a bigger footprint and it cost twice as much.· It also requires a crystal and an EEPROM if I recall correctly, which adds more cost and size.· Of course, there are some applications where the Prop is a much better choice than the SX.
I played around with the Prop a little bit back in April.· I like the chip a lot.· I notice that the spin language has a lot of similarities with C.· In my view, it would have been nice if Parallax would had used C with extensions instead of inventing a new language.· However, it shouldn't take long to master the spin language once I get back to working with the Prop chip.
Dave
This is what I think about this............
·A PBASIC to Spin" guide to help PBASIC programmers -- especially those that are casual programmers -- make the transition a little easier. For me it would make it· a LOT easier·to learn
Would the biggest help to people like me·that started with the Basic Stamp 2 and have gotten to a point now where I want to move to another chip
so I·started to·learning SX28 chip and then saw the EOL notice and now I wondering if this a good choice to learn this chip
I would like to learn Spin but I having a hard time understanding what the command and what they do and having indenting while writing your code routines
It has taken a long time to learn PBasic to where you can do what you want it to
I think·I have gotten to this point except with PBasic Math But I even learn some of this lately as well·and for the most part I understand most of it
One of hardest thing for me to do is to think in logic as how a micro controller thinks I do not know if you understand what I am talking about
If you understand what I am talking about then you see my Problem when writing code routine and learning a new language
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
··Thanks for any·
·
·
·
·
Sam
I think the SX might still be a good choice for you.· My guess is that the SX chip will be available for a couple of more years based on the quantity Parallax has in stock.· Of course, some manufacturers may try to buy up as many chips as they can, but that shouldn't have much effect on the 28-pin DIP version.· For less than the price of two Basic Stamp 2 modules you can purchase the SX Tech Tool Kit.· The SX/B language is very similar to PBASIC, and it should help you get up to speed very quickly on the SX.
If you find that the SX fits your needs you should be able to buy a sufficient number to support you hobby needs for many years.· You can currently buy 25 chips for about $100.· That quantity would more than satisfy my needs for the next decade.
A PBASIC compiler would be nice for the prop processor.· One approach would be to write a pre-processor that converts PBASIC into the spin language.· This way you could write code in PBASIC, convert it to spin and then compile it with the prop development software.· A simple pre-processor is not that hard to write.· However, by the time you would finish writing the pre-processor you would probably be an expert on the spin language.· Maybe someone who is an expert in both PBASIC and spin would be willing to write a pre-processor for the rest of us.
Dave
I have decided, based on the discussion here which includes Parallax folks and forum folks, to stick with the SX for my projects. I have many SX28s in a tube and·several·SX48s, which is what I use most of the time.
SX/B is a good piece of software. It is easy to use. If you know ANY version of BASIC, you can pick up on SX/B as easily as you can PBasic.
I am also excited about the future of the Prop, even if I have to learn Spin, which appears to be no big deal.
--Bill
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
You are what you write.
Regarding the first sentence, the use of the word "dropping" suggests that the word "understand" may be inappropriate.
As for the second sentence, I don't think PIC is capable of designing something as fast and elegant as the SX. IMHO, Microchip designs are cluttered, unpleasant, awkward, and slow. They bear the unmistakable imprint of a committee, with Marketing calling most of the shots.
Certain PIC processors (but not the eight-bitters!) are probably fast enough to perform demodulation of baseband QAM and DPSK signals. But it would be an exercise in mental self-mutilation to code them for this.
I don't much care for their bloated IDE, either. The original DOS assembler for the PIC16C54 was likable. Then Microchip developed Microsoft-itis, and they've never recovered.
Post Edited (K2) : 4/23/2010 12:07:27 AM GMT
You are correct that I really didn't understand Parallax's reasons for dropping the SX when I posted that message.· I thought I understood it at the time, but later posts in the EOL thread helped to clarify Parallax's situation.
I still think that it would be good for Parallax to support a PIC chip in the way they supported the SX.· I hope that my first two sentences in the first post in this thread did not make you violently ill, and prevented you from reading the rest of the post.· I stated my reasons for supporting a PIC chip in the subsequent sentences.
Dave
Supporting PICs is a no-win situation for Parallax. There's plenty of PIC support elsewhere. If that support sucks, then that's what should be addressed.
Once Parallax runs out of SX chips they will be out of the microcontroller business.· The Prop and the Stamps are nice products, but there are many applications where the SX is the perfect chip.· In a world without the SX many of use will migrate to PIC chips.· I think it would make sense for Parallax to support and sell a few varieties of the PIC chip.· Parallax management has made it clear that they don't want to do that.· Anyhow, it's probably a moot point for the next ten years.
Dave
Once Parallax runs out of SX chips they will certainly not be out of the microcontroller business. There may be many applications where the SX may be very well matched to the application, that doesn't make it the only chip suitable for the application. The Propeller is an excellent chip for many applications where the SX may be a cheaper alternative. It may not be what you want and that's ok. Some users of the SX may migrate to PIC chips or AVR chips or whatever. Some may migrate to the Propeller. Parallax will continue to provide unusually excellent support of their products like the Propeller and you will see other tools for Propeller development that will make what's already easy development even easier (like Hanno's graphical programming tool and Bean and JonnyMac's SX/B-like compiler).
I have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect that the Propeller I's cost will continue to decrease over time, maybe not quite as cheap as the SX, but cheaper than it is now.
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for Parallax to try to support the PICs. They're complex chips, require a lot of support, particularly for beginners, and Parallax would get very very little for their effort and expense in a market where the competition is so great and the margins are so little.
Regarding the PIC -- it took us years to get PIC tools out of our business model because they take a lot of support to manage. Everybody makes PIC programmers and we'd offer very little value in an already-crowded market. Yawn. Best success to those in the business. I know what a 3rd party is up against in supporting the many models and variants.
Our trajectory is forward, with our own chips! The enthusiasm we've got for creating our own products is an elephant driving a steam-roller through our office. The BASIC Stamps and Propeller have many internal goals wrapped around them in our office, and our motivation is really high when we see customer success around these products. For the long term, Parallax product line is about Propellers, BASIC Stamps, sensors, robotics, and education with modifications to our plan as guided by our customers.
We are very excited about the future. Next month we're going to Taiwan and China to meet with the various Prop 2 suppliers in packaging, wafer fab, and testing. Chip is making some early rumblings that I'm taking as a clue to prepare.
Thanks for hanging in there with us through the EOL news about the SX.
Ken Gracey
I knew that statement would raise objections when I hit the submit button.· What I should have said is that without the SX, Parallax will be out of the low-cost small-size microcontroller business.· I hope I put enough qualifiers on it this time.· The Prop cannot compete against PIC chips for low cost and small size.
I did a project a few months ago where I build a test stand to measure the thrust of rocket motors.· I needed to generate a 2 KHz square wave and its complement to drive the strain gauge.· I could have used a 555 timer with a few resistors and caps and a flipflop.· However, the SX did the same job with much fewer parts and less soldering.· I hate soldering.· A description of the test stand is located at http://home.swbell.net/davehein/teststand.html·.
I could have use a Prop chip for this project, but that would have been a poorer choice than going the 555 route.· The SX was the perfect choice.· You may notice in my shcematic that I used the 18-pin SX chip.· I still have a few more of those chips.· Actually, once I run out of those I'll probably have to switch to PIC chips.· Even the 28-pin SX is a bit large for many of my applications.
Dave
You might notice that Parallax's BS2pe motherboard (MoBo) does include two AVR microcontrollers. You might also notice that the level of support provided is minimal. Parallax does provide a link for the AVR development platform and the source code used with the MoBo, but you're pretty much on your own if you want to do something different. They also don't sell the AVR as a separate component in their store.
Your particular example for a test stand for rocket motor thrust is a good one for pretty much any solution. You could have used a 555 timer with an inverter of some kind or use a 556 dual timer and left out the regulator. You could indeed use an SX as you did or a PIC or AVR, but you could also have used a Stamp (including a BS1) or a Propeller, whatever you had on hand and were comfortable using. You were making a single unit for short term use, so cost and permanence were not really issues. You could have built it on a mini-breadboard if you wanted.
You're correct that Parallax will be out of the low-cost small-size microcontroller business when the SX is finally gone. On the other hand, they can't afford to be in the low-cost small-size microcontroller business just like they're not in the capacitor business or resistor business or 555 timer business. Like their use of the AVR in the BS2pe MoBo, these are commodity components now and will become only more so in the future. Others will fill the gap with mass-market books like Don Lancaster's and others' books on op-amps and the 555 timer, maybe all web-based.
I changed the name of the thread from "Could Parallax Resell an SX Replacement?" to "Should Parallax Sell an SX Replacement?".· Clearly, Parallax could resell an SX replacement, but the main discussion on this thread has been whether Parallax should sell a replacement.· The main opinion in this thread seems to be that Parallax should not sell an SX replacement.· It appears that many people feel that the SX·can be replaced by a 50-dollar Stamp or by an 8-dollar 40-pin Propeller that requires a few other components to make it operational.· I don't entirely agree with that view, but everyone is welcome to their opinion.
Dave
·