You guys are no help. I'm going straight to the boss. KEN help!!!! I just spent 12 hours with my favorite 2 year old and finished off the day with basketball practice for Special Olympics.
Let's start both a P3 and a P4 thread.
With the understanding that the moment anything is final, everybody will jump on it and stay on it until you say: "that's enough, let's look at the future a little."
If Ken takes me up on this...Those are the magic words, try to play nice:)
Here's the thing: Chip knows his stuff. I've watched him time after time sort through a barrage of stuff leaving something great behind. Ken is worried, because he needs to be. The two are brothers and they know one another well.
I've chosen to believe. This is absolutely not standard, not advisable, you name it, but neither was the P1. I don't think we get really great things without those people who see the greatness possible being able to do their thing.
That couldn't have been done anyway? Don't buy it. Moreover, clearly P2 development itself has been a huge drain on Parallax resources so that much now hinges on it, including quite possibly P1's future.
P1 would never be affected by our P2 effort. It's supply will always persist.
We have to scale our P2 investment sometimes, and the only way P1 would cease to exist is if we were out of business. That's not going to happen. Buy P1s, lots of them, and design them in with confidence!
P1 would never be affected by our P2 effort. It's supply will always persist.
I wouldn't (and shouldn't) expect any other answer from you. But this does seem a bit overstated, based on your own words if nothing else. Maybe not affected *much* would be a better way to put it.
We have to scale our P2 investment sometimes, and the only way P1 would cease to exist is if we were out of business. That's not going to happen.
Considering the long drawn-out process, the end to which is still not clearly in sight, I hope you at least understand the concerns that I and others have shared.
I just got a PO for a P1 project, and plan for others soon as well.
KC_Rob,
Could you be a bit more negative? I think there area few more folks left that need to be brought down by you. Clearly you know what's going on with the P1 and P2 business better than the folks running Parallax do, so please share more of your insights! I look forward to the end of times you most likely predict happening very soon!
KC_Rob,
Could you be a bit more negative? I think there area few more folks left that need to be brought down by you. Clearly you know what's going on with the P1 and P2 business better than the folks running Parallax do, so please share more of your insights! I look forward to the end of times you most likely predict happening very soon!
Why single me out, Roy? Probably a half-dozen or more others have posted similar (and more forcefully said) things in this thread and elsewhere, without any help from me.
It amazes me how illogical (some) people can be on forum like this: taking it personal so readily, for example. Sometimes one fallacy seems almost to follow one right after another (red herrings, personal attacks (ad hominem), strawmen,...). Roy, if you have a problem with some specific point that I or anyone else has made, please address it without getting personal. Otherwise, don't say anything at all. Let's not turn the forum here into more like what you'd expect to find on a politics forum. I don't see how that helps Parallax one bit.
Considering the long drawn-out process, the end to which is still not clearly in sight, I hope you at least understand the concerns that I and others have shared.
I just got a PO for a P1 project, and plan for others soon as well.
Read post #65, (which echoes what I already said) and put your worry-beads away.
It's fantastic that Parallax is committed to a long-term supply for the P1, and they seem to be minding the bottom line such that they will remain around to do so.
None of us can see the future with absolute certainty, so, as the expression goes, "Never say never!" But the future looks good for Parallax and its customers.
Regarding comments expressing worry (or even doubt), I find them interesting to read because I think many of us have had such thoughts or concerns. But I was encouraged by Chip's initial response in John's "Lament" thread, where Chip said, "I know all the smoke and clamor in the kitchen have some on the verge of dialing 911, but we are on track for a much better Prop2 than we were last April. These last several months, with all the input from the forum members, have been as productive as the prior two years were, working on my own. This is the way to get a project done well. Please stick around."
Also, I've personally experienced how something can take five times (or more) longer than I expected, even for my exceeding simple endeavors (compared to Parallax's). So, that's helping me to be relatively patient, even though I do worry about a passing market window. But based on Chip and Ken's comments, things are moving forward. I'm going to stick around.
Now, of course, a couple more failed sample runs would put a damper on things, but I was really glad to read Chip's statement that removing the DAC bus greatly simplifies the routing and tool usage. I quoted it before, but it's worth repeating for any readers trying to evaluate whether they want to stick around: "Getting rid of the DAC bus means that our custom routing largely goes away, so that the place-and-route tool will make all the connections from the core to both the memories and the pad frame. This is going to save tons of layout time."
We can all learn something when people express concerns. I believe everyone here wants to see Parallax and P2 succeed, so we're all on the same team.
I believe everyone here wants to see Parallax and P2 succeed, so we're all on the same team.
That goes without saying. Nonetheless, I hope it's a fact that didn't get buried in the sturm und drang and complaining about the hard seats on the team bus.
KC_Rob,
Perhaps, I should have put some smiley's in there? So you would know that I was attempting to be funny. In any case, your posts struck me as more negative across the board than others. I understand the concerns, but I guess I have a different perspective because I have talked and worked directly with Chip and Ken a bunch. So far the net result of the changes Chip has been making are that the P2 will be a better product and that it will have a better chance of a successful run via the new process (which required them to make changes in the first place).
I'm not worried at all about Parallax's future, the P1's future, or the P2. The P1 is not going away, and the P2 will eventually get here, and we'll all have a grand old time working with it. Until then, we'll have a grand time working with the P1.
KC_Rob,
Perhaps, I should have put some smiley's in there? So you would know that I was attempting to be funny.
You were trying to be funny? Really? If so, I apologize for reacting the way I did. On the other hand, yes, next time add lots of smileys - or better yet, just change your tone and wording a little.
In any case, your posts struck me as more negative across the board than others.
You need to go back and re-read some of those posts. Mine demonstrably were not more "negative" than the rest and to be frank probably were a fair amount less so than a few.
I understand the concerns,...
Good. Understand, too, those concerns are real and are not simply based on "negativity" - one can be concerned without being negative. If I and others simply felt "negative" about P1 and/or P2 we probably wouldn't bother visiting here in the first place.
I have been around Parallax for long enough to realise their fundamental business models (from a distance). The P1 is going to be around for many, many, years to come. Of this I have no doubts!
The P2 has been delayed, but the last delay was due to a failure of process change and was not seen in advance. Time was taken to implement some changes on the list, and to tidy the instruction set up to add a couple more.
But the "massive" change happened over the last week - while Chip took some well-earned time off for Thanksgiving. Well, it was time off from his hands-on Verilog work. The results have been a frenetic discussion on the forums about all sorts of possibilities. In the end, as always, Chip sifted through the forest for the trees. The result has been this "massive" performance boost, including the need to gain some more space by removing some DAC routing.
This resulted in a boost from 128KB to 256KB of hub ram!!!
A method to gain extra unused hub slots
A possibility of replacing LMM with Hub Execution!!!
Some other things such as instructions to help USB bit-banging & CRC generation
SERDES to be worked through
This makes the P2 a magnitude better in capabilities. Well worth any delay, if it actually means a delay beyond that which had to happen.
It's interesting that you picked April Fools Day for the release date.
Well, regardless of what happens with the P2 timeline, there WILL be a party that day.......... It's my 42nd birthday.
As for the risk of P1's longevity, my concerns will stay until I see reason to not have them. In the meantime, don't think it is stopping me from using the P1 for projects or even designing boards around it. Even if the most unlikely event were to actually happen (Parallax going out of business) there is enough P1 market for someone to buy the design rights and continue it's existence.
As someone else has mentioned, I have been bummed by the decrease in Propeller activity caused by the development process of the P2. There are a lot of great SPIN minds that spend their time in the P2 forums instead now. I still push the P1 to anyone I talk to about electronics, but there has been a sever decrease in eye-catching projects with the P1, with the exception of all the activity in C. Maybe I will change my mind once I jump into C, but I picked up SPIN way to easily to leave behind yet and it still makes my projects easy to complete......... Guess I will go back to my SPIN code I was working on before I started this rant.......
Admittedly, I have far less time these days than I would like. But I think I have a lot of company in this. What do we know about the P2 since the last big update? I see all kinds of discussions about HUB ram, etc. Has anything absolutely (for certain) changed? I got Chip's balls sample working right out of the box, but the serial code seems to break it. Is there a bug list on the last update. I have seen reports about waitcnt and division problems… anything else?
Keep up the good fight... every few months I get anxious and desire that the Propeller Two be finally available. But I suspect that whatever it becomes and whenever it arrives ... IT will be a crowd pleaser.
To me, it has morphed beyond a simple P2 identity and that fact should be considered in what it finally is called upon launch. To date.. P2 and P3 have been working names, no reason that the product has to adhere to such.
If a renaming will add to Parallax's prosperity... it should be possible. This has been an epic amount of hard work.
Admittedly, I have far less time these days than I would like. But I think I have a lot of company in this. What do we know about the P2 since the last big update? I see all kinds of discussions about HUB ram, etc. Has anything absolutely (for certain) changed? I got Chip's balls sample working right out of the box, but the serial code seems to break it. Is there a bug list on the last update. I have seen reports about waitcnt and division problems anything else?
As far as I know Chip has already fixed the DIV issue in the current FPGA release.
WAITCNT also has been fixed but we wont see that until the next release.
So far no other issues that I am aware of.
My DE0 and DE2 are getting quite a workout and its all looking good!
This code from Chip doesn't seem to work for me on my DE0 when you have time, please give it a try.
Rich
Rich,
The program has a ORGH $E00 statement in it which means F11 must be used not F10 as is stated at the top of the code.
F11 works Ok on my DE0 and I tried removing the ORGH statement and then F10 worked.
Give that a try.
Good. Understand, too, those concerns are real and are not simply based on "negativity" - one can be concerned without being negative. If I and others simply felt "negative" about P1 and/or P2 we probably wouldn't bother visiting here in the first place.
I just hope you are through "helping."
Hammering on the same concerns, over and over again, when your only remedy involves either a time machine or Parallax giving away P2s below cost is not help.
I just hope you are through stalking and whining. Repeated, infantile personal attacks, complete with lame attempts at humor, are surely a much greater threat to the Parallax community.
I'm not worried at all about Parallax's future, the P1's future, or the P2. The P1 is not going away, and the P2 will eventually get here, and we'll all have a grand old time working with it. Until then, we'll have a grand time working with the P1.
That's the spirit, and the truth. I don't even think I could make six important points in three sentences.
You are all part of our design team and we promise to get you all chips/modules ahead of anybody else. We got your number, I mean your forum member name.
It takes all of us to make this come true. ALL of us, no matter how much you might clamor around with one another. You guys make the tools, write the code, and even design the chip. Chip . . . well, we know what he does. And of course I'll make sure the financial support is in place alongside the efforts of our internal team who have stuck with us so much longer than some might imagine (save the best for last).
I'm not worried at all about Parallax's future, the P1's future, or the P2. The P1 is not going away, and the P2 will eventually get here, and we'll all have a grand old time working with it. Until then, we'll have a grand time working with the P1.
+1 and, when the P2 is here, we'll have a grand time working with both the P1 &P2 !!!
Comments
Let's start both a P3 and a P4 thread.
With the understanding that the moment anything is final, everybody will jump on it and stay on it until you say: "that's enough, let's look at the future a little."
If Ken takes me up on this...Those are the magic words, try to play nice:)
Thanks
Rich
Here's the thing: Chip knows his stuff. I've watched him time after time sort through a barrage of stuff leaving something great behind. Ken is worried, because he needs to be. The two are brothers and they know one another well.
I've chosen to believe. This is absolutely not standard, not advisable, you name it, but neither was the P1. I don't think we get really great things without those people who see the greatness possible being able to do their thing.
With all due respect, I'm delighted not to be in that camp. Ecstatic might be more accurate.
What, btw, have you written for the P1?
P1 would never be affected by our P2 effort. It's supply will always persist.
We have to scale our P2 investment sometimes, and the only way P1 would cease to exist is if we were out of business. That's not going to happen. Buy P1s, lots of them, and design them in with confidence!
By the way, what does this have to do with *anything* relevant to this discussion? I'll answer: Nothing. It's a red herring.
Considering the long drawn-out process, the end to which is still not clearly in sight, I hope you at least understand the concerns that I and others have shared.
I just got a PO for a P1 project, and plan for others soon as well.
Could you be a bit more negative? I think there area few more folks left that need to be brought down by you. Clearly you know what's going on with the P1 and P2 business better than the folks running Parallax do, so please share more of your insights! I look forward to the end of times you most likely predict happening very soon!
It amazes me how illogical (some) people can be on forum like this: taking it personal so readily, for example. Sometimes one fallacy seems almost to follow one right after another (red herrings, personal attacks (ad hominem), strawmen,...). Roy, if you have a problem with some specific point that I or anyone else has made, please address it without getting personal. Otherwise, don't say anything at all. Let's not turn the forum here into more like what you'd expect to find on a politics forum. I don't see how that helps Parallax one bit.
Read post #65, (which echoes what I already said) and put your worry-beads away.
None of us can see the future with absolute certainty, so, as the expression goes, "Never say never!" But the future looks good for Parallax and its customers.
Regarding comments expressing worry (or even doubt), I find them interesting to read because I think many of us have had such thoughts or concerns. But I was encouraged by Chip's initial response in John's "Lament" thread, where Chip said, "I know all the smoke and clamor in the kitchen have some on the verge of dialing 911, but we are on track for a much better Prop2 than we were last April. These last several months, with all the input from the forum members, have been as productive as the prior two years were, working on my own. This is the way to get a project done well. Please stick around."
Also, I've personally experienced how something can take five times (or more) longer than I expected, even for my exceeding simple endeavors (compared to Parallax's). So, that's helping me to be relatively patient, even though I do worry about a passing market window. But based on Chip and Ken's comments, things are moving forward. I'm going to stick around.
Now, of course, a couple more failed sample runs would put a damper on things, but I was really glad to read Chip's statement that removing the DAC bus greatly simplifies the routing and tool usage. I quoted it before, but it's worth repeating for any readers trying to evaluate whether they want to stick around: "Getting rid of the DAC bus means that our custom routing largely goes away, so that the place-and-route tool will make all the connections from the core to both the memories and the pad frame. This is going to save tons of layout time."
We can all learn something when people express concerns. I believe everyone here wants to see Parallax and P2 succeed, so we're all on the same team.
-Phil
Perhaps, I should have put some smiley's in there? So you would know that I was attempting to be funny. In any case, your posts struck me as more negative across the board than others. I understand the concerns, but I guess I have a different perspective because I have talked and worked directly with Chip and Ken a bunch. So far the net result of the changes Chip has been making are that the P2 will be a better product and that it will have a better chance of a successful run via the new process (which required them to make changes in the first place).
I'm not worried at all about Parallax's future, the P1's future, or the P2. The P1 is not going away, and the P2 will eventually get here, and we'll all have a grand old time working with it. Until then, we'll have a grand time working with the P1.
You need to go back and re-read some of those posts. Mine demonstrably were not more "negative" than the rest and to be frank probably were a fair amount less so than a few.
Good. Understand, too, those concerns are real and are not simply based on "negativity" - one can be concerned without being negative. If I and others simply felt "negative" about P1 and/or P2 we probably wouldn't bother visiting here in the first place.
The P2 has been delayed, but the last delay was due to a failure of process change and was not seen in advance. Time was taken to implement some changes on the list, and to tidy the instruction set up to add a couple more.
But the "massive" change happened over the last week - while Chip took some well-earned time off for Thanksgiving. Well, it was time off from his hands-on Verilog work. The results have been a frenetic discussion on the forums about all sorts of possibilities. In the end, as always, Chip sifted through the forest for the trees. The result has been this "massive" performance boost, including the need to gain some more space by removing some DAC routing.
This resulted in a boost from 128KB to 256KB of hub ram!!!
A method to gain extra unused hub slots
A possibility of replacing LMM with Hub Execution!!!
Some other things such as instructions to help USB bit-banging & CRC generation
SERDES to be worked through
This makes the P2 a magnitude better in capabilities. Well worth any delay, if it actually means a delay beyond that which had to happen.
As for the risk of P1's longevity, my concerns will stay until I see reason to not have them. In the meantime, don't think it is stopping me from using the P1 for projects or even designing boards around it. Even if the most unlikely event were to actually happen (Parallax going out of business) there is enough P1 market for someone to buy the design rights and continue it's existence.
As someone else has mentioned, I have been bummed by the decrease in Propeller activity caused by the development process of the P2. There are a lot of great SPIN minds that spend their time in the P2 forums instead now. I still push the P1 to anyone I talk to about electronics, but there has been a sever decrease in eye-catching projects with the P1, with the exception of all the activity in C. Maybe I will change my mind once I jump into C, but I picked up SPIN way to easily to leave behind yet and it still makes my projects easy to complete......... Guess I will go back to my SPIN code I was working on before I started this rant.......
To me, it has morphed beyond a simple P2 identity and that fact should be considered in what it finally is called upon launch. To date.. P2 and P3 have been working names, no reason that the product has to adhere to such.
If a renaming will add to Parallax's prosperity... it should be possible. This has been an epic amount of hard work.
As far as I know Chip has already fixed the DIV issue in the current FPGA release.
WAITCNT also has been fixed but we wont see that until the next release.
So far no other issues that I am aware of.
My DE0 and DE2 are getting quite a workout and its all looking good!
Ozpropdev
Great news.
This code from Chip doesn't seem to work for me on my DE0 when you have time, please give it a try.
Rich
There, now we have a marketing plan.......Engineers, have at it!!
You're welcome!
Actually I would prefer something a bit more corny, like the P2 Intrepid, or just the Intrepid.
Rich,
The program has a ORGH $E00 statement in it which means F11 must be used not F10 as is stated at the top of the code.
F11 works Ok on my DE0 and I tried removing the ORGH statement and then F10 worked.
Give that a try.
Brian
I just hope you are through "helping."
Hammering on the same concerns, over and over again, when your only remedy involves either a time machine or Parallax giving away P2s below cost is not help.
Time to grow up, "User Name."
That's the spirit, and the truth. I don't even think I could make six important points in three sentences.
You are all part of our design team and we promise to get you all chips/modules ahead of anybody else. We got your number, I mean your forum member name.
It takes all of us to make this come true. ALL of us, no matter how much you might clamor around with one another. You guys make the tools, write the code, and even design the chip. Chip . . . well, we know what he does. And of course I'll make sure the financial support is in place alongside the efforts of our internal team who have stuck with us so much longer than some might imagine (save the best for last).
Ken Gracey
What humor? I'm entirely earnest.
I suppose a dramatic renaming is problematic. Maybe I suggest just calling the imrpovemed P2, the P2be?
The older version could remain the P2 or P2 not 2be. IOW, 2be or not 2be, that is the ....
Currently I just hope there is 2BAP2B4I shuffle off this mortal coil.
I don't care what you call it.