Stamp wishing for a PC104?
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
A PC104 would be even better. Lots of C, Windows, DOS, and ???? for only a
few bucks more. Too, lots of manuals to read which can add to the confusion.
few bucks more. Too, lots of manuals to read which can add to the confusion.
Comments
> A PC104 would be even better. Lots of C, Windows, DOS, and ???? for only a
> few bucks more. Too, lots of manuals to read which can add to the confusion.
And, as I recall, much much larger.
Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
"...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
And, where did you find a PC104 board for a few $$ more than $25-$50?
Enquiring minds want to know!
DLC
CHIPKEN@a... wrote:
>
> A PC104 would be even better. Lots of C, Windows, DOS, and ???? for only a
> few bucks more. Too, lots of manuals to read which can add to the confusion.
--
Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
dlc@v...
> A PC104 would be even better. Lots of C, Windows, DOS, and ???? for only a
> few bucks more. Too, lots of manuals to read which can add to the confusion.
How about Atmel AVR's? Well, no RTCC onboard, but FLASH programable,
interupts, fast execution, lots of memory, and a UART. Isn't the BasicX
just an AVR? Plus a BASIC compiler for only $69 from www.mcselec.com.
Check out www.dontronics.com for a real deal.
And how about www.rabbitsemiconductor.com ? RTCC, floating-point ops,
30MHz, 1MB glueless addressing, a free Dynamic C-compiler with advanced
functions which is way easier to write code for than PBASIC. Plus the
dev-kit only costs $100; $39 for single-board computer; $11 for just the
rabbit processor.
Disadvantages here: Current consumption in sleep mode is 500x that of
PICS.
Fred
>On Wed, 3 May 2000 CHIPKEN@a... wrote:
>> A PC104 would be even better. Lots of C, Windows, DOS, and ???? for only a
>> few bucks more. Too, lots of manuals to read which can add to the
confusion.
>
>How about Atmel AVR's? Well, no RTCC onboard, but FLASH programable,
>interupts, fast execution, lots of memory, and a UART. Isn't the BasicX
>just an AVR? Plus a BASIC compiler for only $69 from www.mcselec.com.
>Check out www.dontronics.com for a real deal.
>
>And how about www.rabbitsemiconductor.com ? RTCC, floating-point ops,
>30MHz, 1MB glueless addressing, a free Dynamic C-compiler with advanced
>functions which is way easier to write code for than PBASIC. Plus the
>dev-kit only costs $100; $39 for single-board computer; $11 for just the
>rabbit processor.
Fred (et al) -
My suggestion is - if you are impressed with the Rabbit, wait for further
reviews.
I was wholly UNIMPRESSED. The Devil is in the details (as usual). The sales
hype,
like all sales hype, looks good. It may well have a purpose, and may well
find its
niche - only time will tell.
Ex.
The sales hype boasts CONFIGURABLE I/O, the reality is ONE configurable
port (analog in or out, or digital out [noparse][[/noparse]pick one]). Then it speaks of
MULTI-TASKING C, and you
come to find out that depending on how you have the I/O configured, you can
enter a BUFF_LOCK condition if the serial buffer is full, or concurrent use
is in progress.
Serial I/O via runtime routine is 8,N,1 ONLY.
I stopped getting excited right there. YMMV, of course.
WYSIWYG, _NOT_ what the dox IMPLY, or the sales hype FLASHES. Just my 2 cents.
Bruce
>
>Disadvantages here: Current consumption in sleep mode is 500x that of
>PICS.
>
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>
>