A few points in response to your incoherent email please!
Just because a processor is not large in memory or rich in features does not imply it is not useful; I used SXes every day for commercial products, and I have learned do things with that chip that can not be done with ANY other processor. For example, let's see you write a pre-emptive real time operating system in 99 bytes!
According to popular reports, small micros (4 and 8 bit) still out-ship large micros by a large margin; so obviously there is a market for these little critters.
As far as end of life is concerned, the SX family is NOT end-of-lifed, simply one package format is being dropped.
Some applications cannot be well done with an SX; it was never expected that it would, or should fit all requirements; it is after all a MICROprocessor.
I don't work for Ubicom or Parallax, but I have a very high respect for both of these organizations.
The IPXXXX is a very powerful and extremely fast micro geared to high speed communications, and they are not targeting small users hence they have chosen a high entry cost to the development system so they can focus their expertise on a business model that supports serious large volume buyers. To the best of my understanding, they shipping many hundreds of thousands per month.
And last, if the SX is not for you, and it could well be that you don't have the skills to make that unique little device perform well, then please move on to something that you do like, and leave the rest of us to enjoy the wonders of low-level programming in a small environment.
My personal hope is that we have heard that last from you; I think your negative nattering is not contibuting anything useful to this forum.
> For example, let's see you write a pre-emptive real time operating system in 99 bytes!
Inmos' Transputer had a rather fine preemptive kernel and interprocess communication in the hardware (although scheduling tasks did take a small amount of code) (Sorry, it's just my favourite architecture of all time - I miss it. It was also, for the time, blazingly fast and had interrupt latencies of a couple of hundred nS, sort of SX-like...)
I also use SX devices for many products, and they do what the do exceedingly well. For me, they fill a vital gap between micros and FPGAs (but get used where lesser micros would also be appropriate, simply because of the tools, support and experience)
SX/B lets me (and my minion) knock out prototypes / test gear in no time - where other companies are dedicating a whole PC to a task, we've got $10 of silicon, taking almost no space, power or budget. Customers like that sort of thing!
"freescale has a series 68hc06 very diverse..."
This is true. There's a huge range of chips, but the raw speed of the SX means I don't have to order the part with the right number of serial, I2C, PWM, timers, whatever, and hope it's not been cancelled / long lead time / desupported by the tools - I just code them, and use the chips I have in stock. This is very much a good thing.
However, I do suspect coco is just an inexperienced troll...
I agree that it is not proper to make fun of your ability to write english.
As already discussed, Ubicom bought Scenix (the original makers of the SX), and proceeded to use the technology to develop the next generation (IP series), but with that step they walked away from the hobby community. The SX has been a "dead chip" for many years now,· but that doesn't mean it has lost it's usefulness. It still runs faster than almost all of the current versions of the PIC, Mega and other comperable microcontrollers. Periodically someone complains that the·SX doesn't have ___ (insert ADC, serial com, etc), but if you read the papers on the SX you'll know it was never the intention to incorporate such features, even when the chip was still "live". The entire premise of the chip was to do away with all of the "sometimes used" hardware and replace it with speed and deterministic execution. With both of those features, you can create software equivalents to the hardware they didn't include, read the documents on Virtual Peripherals for an in depth explanation.
Sure the SX has it's drawbacks, but so does every other microcontroller on the market. The biggest problem is a max 4K program space, but if you map out all the applications a microcontroller would be used in, only a small percentage of them would require more than 4K program space. The SX was designed to be a good solution, not a perfect one. If you weight all things, the SX comes out as the best general purpose 8 bit microcontroller on the market, which is pretty amazing considering how old of a design it is. But because something is old, does not mean it lacks utility, the most used design for a mousetrap was patented in 1921 and here we are 84 years later still buying them by the millions each year, even through cleaner and more humane traps exist.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ ·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/30/2005 4:19:23 PM GMT
The SX design is static because Ubicom made a strategic decision to change their business model to pursue communication processors about·four years ago. This·started with·SX applications·involving TCP/IP and communications, which aimed the company in the direction of their 32-bit processors and internet communications business focus. As a result,·Ubicom successfully created a new product line focused·on fewer customers with larger purchasing power.·These changes were coupled with a change in staff and leadership, change in business plan and financiing. This proved to be a productive niche for their company. The SX doesn't fit their business, so it is handled exclusively by Parallax.
What remains consistent through the years is: the SX architecture and silicon; Parallax's involvement with the SX as a tool provider; Parallax's customer support of the design; and most recently our agreement to make Parallax the·only distribution point of the SX. Customers can use the design with confidence·in the supply and support (except the SX52, of course). Our company has kept our customer's interests (and ours, which are the same) in regards to the SX.
You need to ask Ubicom why they don't add USB to their IP processors, not Parallax. This isn't a·common request among the 8-bit users·we support, especially after they read the USB specification and try to make sense of how·it would be implemented. Even·Chip threw the USB spec in the air and reached·for an FTDI or SiLabs·USB bridge after a few days of considering a hardware/software·solution for a Parallax product.
You are mistaken!· Americans do not have a problem with the French people.· Please do not think this because it is not true. ·
I personally didn't reply to your to your post because I have nothing to offer or say on the matter.· However, I have noticed that others have taken the time to respond to you.· Please give them the benefit of the doubt of being nice to you.
When I fix my car, I have a tool box with wrenches, screwdrivers, hammer and others.
To remove a nut, I use a wrench. If I try to use a hammer, the nut does not come off and then it is broken.
The SX uC is a tool. If you have the rigyt kind of problem and you know how to use this tool it can work very well. It will not work well for many jobs.
It will not work well to replace a PC, it will not work well with USB. There are many other uC that will do these thigs much better.
Microchip (another manufacturer) makes a family of uC called PIC. More PIC uCs are sold every year than any other uC family.· Some PIC have less than 1K ROM, some have 128K ROM. Some have only 8 pins, some 80 pins. Different part are suitable for differnt tasks.
Senix/Ubicom designed the SX to be very much like the PIC (so much so that Microchip sued them - and lost). The difference was that the PIC executes 1,000,000 instructions per second and the SX at least 50,000,000.
Most PIC uCs like almost all uCs have hardware peripherals built in: timers, UARTs, A/D and D/A etc. The SX has only simple timers and nothing else. Instead of using hardware, clever programmers can use the high speed of the SX to make peripherals in software.
If you have a project that needs standard peripheral devices and does not need exceptional spped, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT uC.
If you need high performance, low cost, and customized peripherals, AND you are very clever programmer who can solve your own problems with minimal support, try the SX. It can be a lot of fun and very rewarding.
Actually the IP3K does have USB serial protocol hardware support (can't remember on the IP2K), and I believe there is a software stack for it, but offhand I'm not positive on that part. An external physical interface is still required.
Firstly, I don't have a bad opinion of you because you are French.........it is because of the way you are critical of the very people ("bad manufacturer") who make and also provide·free support these chips.
As is their perogative, the original designers of the SX product have gone on to bigger processors and other business models, and so the SX is now in the domain of Parallax. The cost of making a new 8 bit chip, or for that matter modifications to an existing one, is in the range of two to five million dollars, depending on complexity. That is a huge investment for anyone to make when there may be not sufficient call for the new features requested to justtify that level of development; after all, everyone also "wants it for cheap". If YOU have the money, then please proceed to make that investment, and if you dont, then please stop being critical of those who choose not to.
As you say, there are lots of other chips with bigger and different features on the market, ARM, Philips, Freescale etc......go and use them.
As for me, I love my SX.
Yes, criticism can be very useful if it is constructive; the destructive criticism you have been offering only creates bad feelings and contributes nothing useful.
Guenther Daubach said...
Why don't we compile a list of applications/projects done with SXes?
If such list is of general interest, I'd volunteer to manage it. In order to make it as complete as possible, I'd need feedback from all forum members who have created SX application, no matter if these are fun projects, or commercial applications. I'm pretty sure that such list will grow quite fast.
And you can·log in to the site, take ownership and edit the page as much as you like.·Anyone can use the form at the·bottom to add a link to thier completed project.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
---
James Newton, Host of SXList.com james at sxlist,com 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767
SX FAQ / Code / Tutorials / Documentation: http://www.sxlist.com Pick faster!
is, as Guenther expected, impressive. I've managed to add a few from my archives at sxlist.com and by doing googles for "device SX" and like that
What is missing is any of the many projects that Jon Williams has completed in SX/B or other. Do you have a list Jon?
Guenther, again, you can log in to the site, take ownership of that page and edit it as you see fit.
Anyone can add a link to a project if you know of one that has been missed. Just use the form at the bottom of the page. If you have a project that you have not published, you can register, log in, and add pages to the site as you like. email me any pictures and I will put them up for you.
Ken, Back on the subject of the SX52 end of life: I keep hearing people say things like "oh, the SX's are dyeing" and that sort of rot. I know sales figures are not something companies like to share, but can you provide some statistics that don't give up to much? e.g. I would love to hear that "sales of SX chips have increased ###% in the last 6 months"
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
---
James Newton, Host of SXList.com james at sxlist,com 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767
SX FAQ / Code / Tutorials / Documentation: http://www.sxlist.com Pick faster!
In a way Parallax already does this; you should be able to get a sense of activity by looking at the Parallax on-hand inventory and on-order/back-order figures.
Our SX sales have tripled in the last month since the other distribution channels are officially being closed. Our last order of Ubicom SX chips has nearly been consumed as most units are already booked for sale. The Parallax-labelled parts arrive in two weeks and we're already booking that inventory. If you were standing around in our Sales area yesterday you'd have heard them comparing quotes and orders on SX chips. Their enthusiasm for the SX is totally contrary to the naysayers. If you told them it's a "dead chip" they'd say "huh?". Maybe those people should accompany us on a trip our packaging house in Taiwan next month. I wonderif our commitment and supply of RoHS-compliant SX chips would change their minds? Misinformation can only be helped by having correct data. This is the case in an office, a relationship, and in programming.
I'm not going to fight the "dead and dying" rumors anymore - the statement I made above is the last you'll hear from me on the future of the SX. Our commitment will be shown through support, substantial supply and quality service to SX customers.
Our company wants to become the new Parallax SX Distributor for Malaysia.
The current dealer doesn't keep any stocks.
As you may have noticed we have a lot of ongoing projects using the SX.
What are the terms and conditions to become a Parallax SX distributor?
Comments
good suggestion. How about past present and future "sx"? Being finished projects, present projects and wanted or in the works projects.
Jon. Maybe guntehers viewing glass needs to be a new topic.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
73
spence
k4kep
A few points in response to your incoherent email please!
Just because a processor is not large in memory or rich in features does not imply it is not useful; I used SXes every day for commercial products, and I have learned do things with that chip that can not be done with ANY other processor. For example, let's see you write a pre-emptive real time operating system in 99 bytes!
According to popular reports, small micros (4 and 8 bit) still out-ship large micros by a large margin; so obviously there is a market for these little critters.
As far as end of life is concerned, the SX family is NOT end-of-lifed, simply one package format is being dropped.
Some applications cannot be well done with an SX; it was never expected that it would, or should fit all requirements; it is after all a MICROprocessor.
I don't work for Ubicom or Parallax, but I have a very high respect for both of these organizations.
The IPXXXX is a very powerful and extremely fast micro geared to high speed communications, and they are not targeting small users hence they have chosen a high entry cost to the development system so they can focus their expertise on a business model that supports serious large volume buyers. To the best of my understanding, they shipping many hundreds of thousands per month.
And last, if the SX is not for you, and it could well be that you don't have the skills to make that unique little device perform well, then please move on to something that you do like, and leave the rest of us to enjoy the wonders of low-level programming in a small environment.
My personal hope is that we have heard that last from you; I think your negative nattering is not contibuting anything useful to this forum.
Bon-jour!
Peter (pjv)
Post Edited (pjv) : 11/29/2005 7:13:58 PM GMT
Inmos' Transputer had a rather fine preemptive kernel and interprocess communication in the hardware (although scheduling tasks did take a small amount of code) (Sorry, it's just my favourite architecture of all time - I miss it. It was also, for the time, blazingly fast and had interrupt latencies of a couple of hundred nS, sort of SX-like...)
I also use SX devices for many products, and they do what the do exceedingly well. For me, they fill a vital gap between micros and FPGAs (but get used where lesser micros would also be appropriate, simply because of the tools, support and experience)
SX/B lets me (and my minion) knock out prototypes / test gear in no time - where other companies are dedicating a whole PC to a task, we've got $10 of silicon, taking almost no space, power or budget. Customers like that sort of thing!
"freescale has a series 68hc06 very diverse..."
This is true. There's a huge range of chips, but the raw speed of the SX means I don't have to order the part with the right number of serial, I2C, PWM, timers, whatever, and hope it's not been cancelled / long lead time / desupported by the tools - I just code them, and use the chips I have in stock. This is very much a good thing.
However, I do suspect coco is just an inexperienced troll...
Steve
Post Edited (SteveW) : 11/29/2005 7:28:17 PM GMT
"ubicom need a email and a patriot act and number of shoes and so the number of telephone that your wife and after ?"
I cannot stop laughing.
Nate
An opportunity for me to bring up one of my favourite "idiot" lines.........."consider the source, and ignore it"
Cheers for Maui, Hawaii,
Peter (pjv)
Post Edited (pjv) : 11/29/2005 9:33:15 PM GMT
in first : you are not understand my opinion of SX
in second : when i said that the sx is a small flash memory, this is a idea !
and you are a bad opinion for me because i am french and the american doesn't like french community !
in france when i said "can you do the job ", the man must do the job !
in usa when i said can you do the job , the man said "yes i do" ! and ist finish !
i said that the SX is not a 'live chip' because if the chip is in life the manufacturer do a new processor for increase the choice ok?
why ubicon doesn't make a processeur with USB an I/O controls ? why the SX is solidified
critical is always constructive
As already discussed, Ubicom bought Scenix (the original makers of the SX), and proceeded to use the technology to develop the next generation (IP series), but with that step they walked away from the hobby community. The SX has been a "dead chip" for many years now,· but that doesn't mean it has lost it's usefulness. It still runs faster than almost all of the current versions of the PIC, Mega and other comperable microcontrollers. Periodically someone complains that the·SX doesn't have ___ (insert ADC, serial com, etc), but if you read the papers on the SX you'll know it was never the intention to incorporate such features, even when the chip was still "live". The entire premise of the chip was to do away with all of the "sometimes used" hardware and replace it with speed and deterministic execution. With both of those features, you can create software equivalents to the hardware they didn't include, read the documents on Virtual Peripherals for an in depth explanation.
Sure the SX has it's drawbacks, but so does every other microcontroller on the market. The biggest problem is a max 4K program space, but if you map out all the applications a microcontroller would be used in, only a small percentage of them would require more than 4K program space. The SX was designed to be a good solution, not a perfect one. If you weight all things, the SX comes out as the best general purpose 8 bit microcontroller on the market, which is pretty amazing considering how old of a design it is. But because something is old, does not mean it lacks utility, the most used design for a mousetrap was patented in 1921 and here we are 84 years later still buying them by the millions each year, even through cleaner and more humane traps exist.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10
Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/30/2005 4:19:23 PM GMT
There is a·more recent posting regarding SX52 availability which has been made a sticky note:
http://forum.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&m=95246
The SX design is static because Ubicom made a strategic decision to change their business model to pursue communication processors about·four years ago. This·started with·SX applications·involving TCP/IP and communications, which aimed the company in the direction of their 32-bit processors and internet communications business focus. As a result,·Ubicom successfully created a new product line focused·on fewer customers with larger purchasing power.·These changes were coupled with a change in staff and leadership, change in business plan and financiing. This proved to be a productive niche for their company. The SX doesn't fit their business, so it is handled exclusively by Parallax.
What remains consistent through the years is: the SX architecture and silicon; Parallax's involvement with the SX as a tool provider; Parallax's customer support of the design; and most recently our agreement to make Parallax the·only distribution point of the SX. Customers can use the design with confidence·in the supply and support (except the SX52, of course). Our company has kept our customer's interests (and ours, which are the same) in regards to the SX.
You need to ask Ubicom why they don't add USB to their IP processors, not Parallax. This isn't a·common request among the 8-bit users·we support, especially after they read the USB specification and try to make sense of how·it would be implemented. Even·Chip threw the USB spec in the air and reached·for an FTDI or SiLabs·USB bridge after a few days of considering a hardware/software·solution for a Parallax product.
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
You are mistaken!· Americans do not have a problem with the French people.· Please do not think this because it is not true.
·
I personally didn't reply to your to your post because I have nothing to offer or say on the matter.· However, I have noticed that others have taken the time to respond to you.· Please give them the benefit of the doubt of being nice to you.
Tom (aka: up2long)
When I fix my car, I have a tool box with wrenches, screwdrivers, hammer and others.
To remove a nut, I use a wrench. If I try to use a hammer, the nut does not come off and then it is broken.
The SX uC is a tool. If you have the rigyt kind of problem and you know how to use this tool it can work very well. It will not work well for many jobs.
It will not work well to replace a PC, it will not work well with USB. There are many other uC that will do these thigs much better.
Microchip (another manufacturer) makes a family of uC called PIC. More PIC uCs are sold every year than any other uC family.· Some PIC have less than 1K ROM, some have 128K ROM. Some have only 8 pins, some 80 pins. Different part are suitable for differnt tasks.
Senix/Ubicom designed the SX to be very much like the PIC (so much so that Microchip sued them - and lost). The difference was that the PIC executes 1,000,000 instructions per second and the SX at least 50,000,000.
Most PIC uCs like almost all uCs have hardware peripherals built in: timers, UARTs, A/D and D/A etc. The SX has only simple timers and nothing else. Instead of using hardware, clever programmers can use the high speed of the SX to make peripherals in software.
If you have a project that needs standard peripheral devices and does not need exceptional spped, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT uC.
If you need high performance, low cost, and customized peripherals, AND you are very clever programmer who can solve your own problems with minimal support, try the SX. It can be a lot of fun and very rewarding.
Regards, Hugh
Actually the IP3K does have USB serial protocol hardware support (can't remember on the IP2K), and I believe there is a software stack for it, but offhand I'm not positive on that part. An external physical interface is still required.
Cheers from Maui, Hawaii,
Peter (pjv)
Firstly, I don't have a bad opinion of you because you are French.........it is because of the way you are critical of the very people ("bad manufacturer") who make and also provide·free support these chips.
As is their perogative, the original designers of the SX product have gone on to bigger processors and other business models, and so the SX is now in the domain of Parallax. The cost of making a new 8 bit chip, or for that matter modifications to an existing one, is in the range of two to five million dollars, depending on complexity. That is a huge investment for anyone to make when there may be not sufficient call for the new features requested to justtify that level of development; after all, everyone also "wants it for cheap". If YOU have the money, then please proceed to make that investment, and if you dont, then please stop being critical of those who choose not to.
As you say, there are lots of other chips with bigger and different features on the market, ARM, Philips, Freescale etc......go and use them.
As for me, I love my SX.
Yes, criticism can be very useful if it is constructive; the destructive criticism you have been offering only creates bad feelings and contributes nothing useful.
Bon-jour!
Peter (pjv)
Post Edited (pjv) : 11/30/2005 9:34:31 PM GMT
Great idea! I set up a page at:
http://www.sxlist.com/projects
And you can·log in to the site, take ownership and edit the page as much as you like.·Anyone can use the form at the·bottom to add a link to thier completed project.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
---
James Newton, Host of SXList.com
james at sxlist,com 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767
SX FAQ / Code / Tutorials / Documentation:
http://www.sxlist.com Pick faster!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
DTQ
http://www.sxlist.com/projects
is, as Guenther expected, impressive. I've managed to add a few from my archives at sxlist.com and by doing googles for "device SX" and like that
What is missing is any of the many projects that Jon Williams has completed in SX/B or other. Do you have a list Jon?
Guenther, again, you can log in to the site, take ownership of that page and edit it as you see fit.
Anyone can add a link to a project if you know of one that has been missed. Just use the form at the bottom of the page. If you have a project that you have not published, you can register, log in, and add pages to the site as you like. email me any pictures and I will put them up for you.
Ken, Back on the subject of the SX52 end of life: I keep hearing people say things like "oh, the SX's are dyeing" and that sort of rot. I know sales figures are not something companies like to share, but can you provide some statistics that don't give up to much? e.g. I would love to hear that "sales of SX chips have increased ###% in the last 6 months"
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
---
James Newton, Host of SXList.com
james at sxlist,com 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767
SX FAQ / Code / Tutorials / Documentation:
http://www.sxlist.com Pick faster!
In a way Parallax already does this; you should be able to get a sense of activity by looking at the Parallax on-hand inventory and on-order/back-order figures.
Cheers from Maui, Hawaii,
Peter (pjv)
Our SX sales have tripled in the last month since the other distribution channels are officially being closed. Our last order of Ubicom SX chips has nearly been consumed as most units are already booked for sale. The Parallax-labelled parts arrive in two weeks and we're already booking that inventory. If you were standing around in our Sales area yesterday you'd have heard them comparing quotes and orders on SX chips. Their enthusiasm for the SX is totally contrary to the naysayers. If you told them it's a "dead chip" they'd say "huh?". Maybe those people should accompany us on a trip our packaging house in Taiwan next month. I wonderif our commitment and supply of RoHS-compliant SX chips would change their minds? Misinformation can only be helped by having correct data. This is the case in an office, a relationship, and in programming.
I'm not going to fight the "dead and dying" rumors anymore - the statement I made above is the last you'll hear from me on the future of the SX. Our commitment will be shown through support, substantial supply and quality service to SX customers.
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Our company wants to become the new Parallax SX Distributor for Malaysia.
The current dealer doesn't keep any stocks.
As you may have noticed we have a lot of ongoing projects using the SX.
What are the terms and conditions to become a Parallax SX distributor?
Thanks.