ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/18/90)
Date: 02-16-90 (20:08) Number: 390 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JOSE BETANCOURT Read: (N/A)
Subj: RTX4000 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
The third issue of RTXPress from Harris did not mention
the RTX4000 Embedded Processor. Is it still in the works?
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/03/90)
Date: 04-30-90 (09:49) Number: 470 (Echo) To: KENNETH O'HESKIN Refer#: NONE From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX ADD MEMORY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE > > I have asking around for a P16V8S part (as per the manual), > and nobody recognises it. Can anybody help--is this right? > Or is there some actual brand name or other componant number I > should be specifying? Signetics used to make such a part but it is being discontinued. I ordered that part from the LATTICE Semiconductor catalog. =jax= NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth! ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/03/90)
Date: 04-30-90 (08:03) Number: 471 (Echo) To: KENNETH O'HESKIN Refer#: 467 From: JAN HOFLAND Read: 04-30-90 (08:01) Subj: HARRIS RTX ADD MEMORY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Ken, Yes, I'm having fun with the rtx2001 board. I am having to start my programming from scratch, but that is part of the fun. I find the stuff in the ROM to be a subset of what I've read about Forth. Very few tools for getting inside of a word; for example, no decompiler. Maybe that will be a fun future project. In the meantime, it's all I can do to get this one working the way I expect. Managed to get some words defined for building and using some queues. Still much more to go. As far as the PAL is concerned, I can probably program one for you if you can generate what you want inside of it. I can probably find a Lattice device to put the program into. If you still have my mail address, send it via that route. Ideally, a message through Internet would be easiest, but I expect that you don't have access to that. If you do, send it to janh@hplsla.HP.COM. Regards, Jan NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/03/90)
Date: 05-01-90 (17:52) Number: 472 (Echo) To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: ANIL RODRIX Read: (N/A) Subj: RTX2001 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Hello - I 'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong - messages after four-fifty something wrapped around to 327 it seems. Anyway - one more addition here to the RTX2001 recipients - just got mine yesterday. I'm not sure if I'll be able to complete Phase II. Can someone clarify if one is not supposed to add any hardware, or only additional memory? Somewhere it says to condense the application to fit on the EVB. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (05/03/90)
> From: ANIL RODRIX Read: (N/A) > Subj: RTX2001 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE > > Can someone clarify if one is not supposed to add any hardware, or only > additional memory? Somewhere it says to condense the application to fit > on the EVB. If it fits in the prototype area on the board, you can add it. In fact, one of the prize catagories is for a mostly hardware project. By the way, if you are using wire-wrap I have found that the TI sockets can squeeze more chips per square inch because pins can be placed on adjacent columns. Other sockets often require skipping a column between pins. Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 Senior Scientist at Harris Semiconductor, adjunct professor at CMU. I don't speak for them, and they don't speak for me.
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/04/90)
Date: 05-02-90 (08:14) Number: 477 (Echo)
To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: RTX2001 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
>condense project to fit on RTX2001AEB
Anil, I took that with a grain of salt. There is no way
that the hardware I am going to control will all fit on the
EB. I'm going to put the expansion memory and the I/O latches
on board, but the 4-amp power I am switching probably belongs
*off* board :-) :-)
If they don't like it, then I guess I don't win, huh? :-)
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/04/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 149 Thu May 03, 1990 DANMILLER at 21:43 CDT jax. i have as source for a $2 8 pin chip to drive a high power mosfet from 5v control line. built in voltage trippler and zener to drive the hexfet gate. the chip and a mosfet would handle muchos amps. power mosfets are pretty small. Micrel makes the chip. I have their data sheet and address. let me know if you need it. <dan> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
mbutts@mentor.com (Mike Butts) (05/05/90)
Sorry, I just got here. I was quite an active Forth hack some years ago, but
lapsed. Lately I went looking for an embedded controller to use in a
personal project and was delighted to turn up some data sheets on the RTX. Now
I look in comp.lang.forth and see references to some sort of contest, and
a Harris evaluation board. Would someone kindly bring me up to date on the
contest, and on low-cost RTX stuff in general? Thanx in advance.
--
Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302(fax:1282)
Mentor Graphics Corporation, 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, Oregon 97005
!{ogicse,sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM
Any opinions are my own, and aren't necessarily shared by Mentor Graphics Corp.ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/06/90)
Date: 05-04-90 (11:27) Number: 483 (Echo) To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: 472 From: PETE KOZIAR Read: 05-04-90 (17:28) Subj: RTX HARDWARE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Go ahead and add all you want, but it must fit on the board. My project wouldn't be doable at all if I couldn't add A/D converters to the board. --- * Via Qwikmail 2.01 The Baltimore Sun ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/06/90)
Date: 05-04-90 (17:28) Number: 488 (Echo) To: JACK WOEHR Refer#: 477 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: RTX2001 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE I just talked to Harris (Chris Ellis?) but was fumbling for what to ask. She said the larger portions of the machine should be described, and it would be nice if it could be demonstrated if there was an interest, but not as part of the entry being sent in. Also the EB could be worked on later than the June 8 deadline as the written part should be in by then. In my case I would need encoders, D/A converters, my servo-type drives and maybe motors to be able to demonstrate anything. I still cannot quite see - with just asingle board what does a spectator look at - the code? ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/06/90)
Date: 05-04-90 (11:27) Number: 484 (Echo) To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: PETE KOZIAR Read: (N/A) Subj: RTXEB NOTE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE One thing I got bitten by in my programming the RTXEB is that it allocates code and data spaces separate. This means that CREATE...ALLOT doesn't do what it usually does. Here's an example: CREATE GOO 20 ALLOT : FOO ... ; What this does is create something called GOO, which returns the current address in CODE SPACE, which will turn out to be the body of FOO! The 20 ALLOT was in data space, which we wind up not being able to get to. There may be a better way to do this, but this works for me: VARIABLE GOO 18 ALLOT : FOO ... ; This way, GOO returns the current place in data space. The use of VARIABLE already ALLOTs 2 bytes, so we subtract that from the amount of bytes we need for our storage. He who has ears, let him hear. Before I figured this out, it near drove me nuts. --- * Via Qwikmail 2.01 The Baltimore Sun ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/06/90)
Date: 05-04-90 (17:10) Number: 485 (Echo) To: JOE BROWN Refer#: 462 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE I havent even booted up yet; but reading thru the lit it seems memory will almost surely be needed. I'd like to run at 2 MHz but dont have a replacement ( 4MHz osc.). Since my proposal was a machine to cut and weld pipe intersections I cant figure out exactly what I could send as an entry; the entry is supposed to fit on the RTXEB. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/06/90)
Date: 05-04-90 (17:15) Number: 486 (Echo) To: KENNETH O'HESKIN Refer#: 464 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX ADD MEMORY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE p16v8s certainly sounds strange; the commonest V series is 22V10; that has configurable output cells. I have only used the low end PALs, 16L8 and 16H8. If anyone needs programming (burning) the chip maybe I could help. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/07/90)
Date: 05-05-90 (20:11) Number: 3213 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JOSE BETANCOURT Read: (N/A)
Subj: RTX Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
I read in a mag. an article about Intel's hold on its advanced
386 family. A Harris spokeman said that because of this, they would
continue to target the real-time market in contrast to general purpose
data processing. I don't remember the exact quotes, but it indicated
that the RTX family and offshoots would probably be its main
microcontroller line
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/26/90)
Date: 05-19-90 (14:55) Number: 542 (Echo) To: JAN HOFLAND Refer#: 520 From: CHRIS VAISVIL Read: NO Subj: G> & D> Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE JH>Yeah, it is, jax. Personally, I'm hampered by my limited experience JH>programming it. I'm trying to generate waveforms. Looks like my max JH>speed will be sinewaves at 40 KHz. Much slower if you want amplitude JH>scaling and accurate phase. I suppose that I will eventually learn h JH>to tune it up using selective machine code. In the meantime, somethi JH>that works slow is better than something that doesn't work fast. Now JH>if I could only get hold of the 2010, 10 MHz version... JH> Regards, JH>Jan Jan, what are you programming? I'm interested in real time production of music from the numbers, and 40kHz would do just fine! Chris Vaisvil NET/Mail : Scintillation BBS - Glen Ellyn, IL (708)953-4922 HST ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/26/90)
Date: 05-24-90 (17:26) Number: 543 (Echo) To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 536 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE I havent tried yet, but it seems to me the asic bus is just like a data bus. G@ and G! dont write to the bus ( although the data will appear during the write cycle on the bus); 3 G@ should get the value stored in the No. 3 ASIC register. You cant set a bit on the bus - it is not a register or port. But you coud set bits if allowed in the 24 internal ASIC registers or 8 more external addresses if youve set up something. Jack W. thought the external addressing was deactivated, so I'm not sure about that. Addresses from 24 to 31 are decoded on GA0,1,2, and I think GIO is active only for these external addresses. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/27/90)
Date: 05-25-90 (06:30) Number: 547 (Echo) To: JAN HOFLAND Refer#: 520 From: PETE KOZIAR Read: NO Subj: RTX SPEED Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Unfortunately, I also "hit the wall" as far as speed is concerned. I don't think I'll be able to do all I wanted to do with it. Just my output routine, done in a "first cut" takes about 50 ms, which is about 100 times slower than I need. Because of the RTX "mystique," one tends to think of the thing as being infinitely fast. Well, it ain't. No chance of anything by June 8. --- * Via Qwikmail 2.01 The Baltimore Sun ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/27/90)
Date: 05-25-90 (17:49) Number: 553 (Echo) To: PETE KOZIAR Refer#: 549 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: ASIC BUS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE I've just done a bit of looking at the ASIC bus. I forgot to check the read/wr line; but the GIO pulses low nicely in the middle of the address setup of GA0,1 & 2. I'm trying to interface directly to rotary encoder chips and a dual D/A converter, without any logic. Maybe I'll have to give in and add a couple of gates. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/28/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 179 Sun May 27, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 12:53 CDT To: Tom Short Re: RTX carry bit stuck > example: > BINARY > 1 2*C 2*C . > gives 111 when it should be 100 (if the carry bit is initially 0). No, your carry bit is working fine. The carry bit is not a dedicated user register. Just like on any microprocessor, it is subject to being changed by any instruction that affects it. When you are in the outer interpreter and the '1' is performed you do not know the current state of the carry. Immediately after the first '2*C' is performed you can expect the carry to be clear. However, you can no longer count on that being true by the time the RTX begins to perform the second '2*C' because you are in the outer interpreter! It performs numerous instructions between the two '2*C's and obviously leaves the carry bit set. Here is proof: HEX : X ( u -) 2*C 2*C U. ; : Y ( u -) CR@ FFFE AND CR! ( ie clear the carry bit) 2*C 2*C U. ; BINARY 1 2*C 2*C U. --> 111 1 X --> 110 1 Y --> 100 Hope this clears things up. -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/29/90)
Date: 05-25-90 (06:42) Number: 559 (Echo) To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: 543 From: BRUCE N. BAKER Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE >I havent tried yet, but it seems to me the asic bus is just like a data >bus. G@ and G! dont write to the bus ( although the data will appear >during the write cycle on the bus); 3 G@ should get the value stored in >the No. 3 ASIC register. You cant set a bit on the bus - it is not a Excuse me for butting in but what critter are you all talking about ? -BNB NET/Mail : Science Factor BBS - Science Technical - 206-562-7083 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/30/90)
Date: 05-28-90 (12:46) Number: 565 (Echo) To: BRUCE N. BAKER Refer#: 559 From: JERRY SHIFRIN Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE BN>Excuse me for butting in but what critter are you all talking about ? No harm, you've just stepped into the middle of an ongoing discussion on Harris Semiconductor's (and Embedded Systems Programming) real-time design contest. Several people in this conference qualified for a free development board, the Harris RTX2001A Evaluation board, which includes a Forth-in-hardware microcontroller and a Forth development environment. The deadline for contest proposals was 4/15/90, but call Harris for more info: 800-4-HARRIS, x1300. Ask them for a copy of their RTX literature package and newsletter. --- ~ EZ 1.29 ~ ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/31/90)
Date: 05-28-90 (20:30) Number: 566 (Echo) To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: NONE From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE >Jack W. thought the external addressing was deactivated, so I'm not sur >about that. Actually, I said that I thought I had read a line in the manual saying that "use of ASIC bus for peripheral I/O was an artifact". Now that I have read manual more carefully, believe it works. Concat /GIO with GA0,1,2 for address decoding. ASIC data bus appears at JP3. Will be testing this week, will post results. =jax= NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth! ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-28-90 (03:39) Number: 3290 (Echo) To: PETE KOZIAR Refer#: NONE From: JONAH THOMAS Read: NO Subj: N'S T'S AND G'S Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Yes, if you make the stack picture be the name of the Forth stack word, you do have the problem of remembering which words are present. I'd say that's potentially a problem with any Forth, if you switch back and forth much you won't remember whether NIP and TUCK are present. Different machines will prefer different primitives, sure. But that comes with the territory. You can optimise for one machine and still have code that can be emulated on another, slower. The traditional wisdom is that there's no point trying to optimise Forth code for speed, because if you need speed you can code inner loops (or whatever needs to be fastest) in assembly. That will get you more than piddling around with using ROT SWAP versus >R SWAP R> . But what do you do with the RTX? If you're going to optimise an inner loop, you're optimising it in Forth, more or less. But the RTX2000 isn't really a Forth machine. It's just one of the closest things that's come along so far. If you work it so the things you need bubble up on the stack just exactly when you need them, then they don't cost you anything at all in time. But if what you need happens to get buried in the stack, it takes a lot longer to get it than it would to get it out of a variable. The RTX doesn't optimise for Forth, it's its own thing, that happens to fit Forth pretty well. But when you look at its primitives and explain them in Forth, some of them make no sense. For example, there's a primitive that gets listed as SWAP DROP DUP @ SWAP . What it does is simple, it gets the number at the TOS address, and puts that number in NOS, leaving TOS and SOS alone. Forth didn't include anything like that, because usually you'd rather have the number from memory on TOS where you can use it, and its old address just gets in the way. But the RTX gives you the chance to add or subtract a number up to 32 from the address on TOS, still within the same 2 cycles! So some memory operations get real efficient, you can get a bunch of fields from a record very quickly. Anyway, I figure if you need to optimise, why not get a language that makes it as easy as possible? If you don't care about making it fast or small, you can always write sloppy. If you do need tight fast code, it's easier if you know which words are primitives and how they fit together. It isn't hard to make an optimising compiler if the programmer gives it easy jobs to do. The idea of making stack words look like their operations isn't new. Doneil Hoekman wrote an article about it in FD January, 1986. He made a STACK word that interpreted a stack diagram on the spot. It was slow but very flexible. NET/Mail : The MATRIX (5 Nodes/1.2 Gig) Birmingham, AL (205) 323-2016 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-29-90 (19:14) Number: 568 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: KENNETH O'HESKIN Read: (N/A)
Subj: HARRIS ADD MEMORY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Anyone get their memory expansion installed using the
manual example (the 16v8 GAL with KR Lyons' source code)?
The "marching 1's and 0's" test progamme as supplied will
crash my system. It has page 0 starting at 4AE0. Elsewhere
in the Harris documents I believe it states the this
configuration will start at 8000h.
Well my system's RAM starts at 4000h; some of the memory
is claimed by the compiler at bootup, so useable RAM starts
at 4300h with the dictionary data space. I set H-TOP for 6000h
and use the (page 0) 40k above it for buffers, which is plenty
for now. There is an additional 16k mapped in page 1, which can
be accessed with the @l c!l, etc. That accounts for the 64k.
I used my own code to test it and its all there as it should
be. Maybe there's a way of playing around with the code pages
to remap the memory that I havn't come across yet. Anyway I'm
happy enough with the present scheme.
---
~ EZ 1.26 ~ x
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-30-90 (01:33) Number: 569 (Echo)
To: PETE KOZIAR Refer#: 549
From: KENNETH O'HESKIN Read: NO
Subj: ASIC BUS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
PK>I got the ASIC bus driving LEDS using two 74HC374's and a 74HC138. N
PK>PALs required.
Right enough, but I have the GAL anyhow so I might as well
enjoy it. I must say it made my decoding problem pretty
manageable. Need two 8 bit ports and some handshaking,
and have the write running fine. I'm using the GAL selects
to enable my buffers and strobe line, but might need to add a
gate to make the read strobe properly. Sorting out the asic
opcodes is also straighforward, once I got it out of my head
that G@ and G! might somehow be useful for something! I think
they just threw 'em in as a trap.
---
~ EZ 1.26 ~ x
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-30-90 (01:33) Number: 570 (Echo)
To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: NONE
From: KENNETH O'HESKIN Read: 05-30-90 (14:45)
Subj: ASIC Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Actually I ended up soldering some jumpers, and caps to the
power grids, and the only problems I had with the memory
wirewrap was because I hadn't soldered the wirewrap strips
on the header securly. Fixed with a few grams of hot tin.
The odds are I won't make the deadline either since the
hardware work has taken up all the time (not that it isn't
a whole sh*tload of fun, and I must say I'm totally hooked
on doing more). If I can get my asic work debugged in a couple
days, might be able to submit a "tiny model" for the contest,
but doing a full-blown application in 3 days is a pretty tall
order, even for you aces out there!
---
~ EZ 1.26 ~ You never leave the bus -- Ken Keasy
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-30-90 (14:29) Number: 572 (Echo) To: BRUCE N. BAKER Refer#: 559 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Subject of discussion was the RTX-EB, RTX-20A evaluation board from Harris Semiconductor, which a number of callers on the this Forth BBS have received as a Phase I prize in the Harris RTX design contest. Seems like this NET hs expanded or changed some; there may be many callers who dont have the least idea whatt was. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-30-90 (14:40) Number: 575 (Echo) To: JACK WOEHR Refer#: 566 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Hi Jack - yes I checked it out - it does work. If i ever do anything I will be using GIO. no address decoding for me; I intend to run the lines out directly to my peripheral chips. Date: 05-30-90 (14:42) Number: 576 (Echo) To: KENNETH O'HESKIN Refer#: 569 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: ASIC BUS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Hey there - hold your horses - G@ and G! seem to be exactly what I want !!! Date: 05-30-90 (14:45) Number: 577 (Echo) To: KENNETH O'HESKIN Refer#: 570 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: ASIC Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE You dont have to submit the actual hardware by the deadline; just document whatever you have worked out as completely as possible and indicate what more would have to be done. I think Harris will contact you if they want the board - not sure , but I know only the written part is due by the deadline. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/01/90)
Date: 05-30-90 (15:15) Number: 580 (Echo) To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: 552 From: PETE KOZIAR Read: NO Subj: HARRIS CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Yes, I think that deadline was just plumb unreasonable (insane is another word to describe it). Harris wanted real projects to show off the chip, but unless you are working on it full-time, it's impossible to get it done in time. Maybe by the end of the year I'll have mine working. --- * Via Qwikmail 2.01 The Baltimore Sun ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/02/90)
Date: 05-30-90 (08:07) Number: 582 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: (N/A)
Subj: RTX2001A: HALIGN DALIGN Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Hmmm ... if you create a table in memory in RTX2001A EBForth
with CREATE and a buncha C, the dictionary can get misaligned!
( for code space use: ) : HALIGN H @ 1 AND H +! ;
( also, for data space: ) : DALIGN R @ 1 AND H +! ;
may be needed, as in
: CTABLE CREATE DOES> + ;
CTABLE FOO 1 C, 2 C, 17 C, 34 C, 99 C, HALIGN
In this example, if you *don't* use HALIGN, the next word
you create in the dictionary won't be findable because name header
will be odd-aligned.
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/05/90)
Date: 06-01-90 (10:39) Number: 589 (Echo) To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: 575 From: JACK WOEHR Read: 06-01-90 (15:12) Subj: HARRIS RTX DESIGN CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE >Hi Jack - yes I checked it out - it does work. If i ever do anything I >will be using GIO. no address decoding for me; I intend to run the line >out directly to my peripheral chips. > Thanx! Will wire up shortly thusly. =jax= NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth! ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/05/90)
Date: 06-01-90 (15:04) Number: 591 (Echo) To: PETE KOZIAR Refer#: 580 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: HARRIS CONTEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE No way they could get a real project from me; the full proposal I sent if manufactured ( in our small qtys) would list for at least about 10 grand. I went overboard in Phase I; the entry is quite feasible and the RTX would be nice if it was easier to work with. But for the effort the risk/reward ratio was quite good. For Phase II i'm not so sure, except for the 1st and maybe next 2 prizes, the return is not that great. If I do manage to send mine in it may be useful mostly to demonstrate a peripheral interface. NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth! ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/11/90)
Date: 07-06-90 (18:04) Number: 648 (Echo)
To: JAN HOFLAND Refer#: NONE
From: JACK BROWN Read: NO
Subj: ASCII UPLOAD TO RTX Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
To have high speed upload to the RTX 2001A Contest board we need to
look at the definitions of ABORT on page 116 of the EBFORTH Manual
HEX
: ABORT
0 SPR@+ FF00 AND SPR! \ Clear parameter stack
'IDLE @ EXECUTE ;
and the defintion of QUIT on page 119 of the EBFORTH Manual
HEX
: QUIT
0 STATE !
-1 SPR@+ 0FF AND SPR! \ clear return stack
BEGIN CR QUERY RUN
STATE @ 0= IF ." OK " THEN
AGAIN ;
Write your on version of QUIT to emit a pacing character just before the
QUERY like so:
: XQUIT
0 STATE !
-1 SPR@+ 0FF AND SPR! \ clear return stack
BEGIN CR xx EMIT \ where xx is desired pacing character
QUERY RUN
STATE @ 0= IF ." ok " THEN \ lower case ok identifies XQUIT
AGAIN ;
Then revector 'IDLE to XQUIT
' XQUIT 'IDLE !
and execute ABORT
Configure you COMM program to use your choosen pacing character xx
and watch the code blast through at 115200 baud!
The same technique works with the New micros f68hc11 board except you
have to do a little hacking to get some of the system values... here is
the code for the V3.3 roms. I used the " ~ " for the pacing character
for debugging purposes.
004C CONSTANT UABORT
0054 CONSTANT WARNING
: XQUIT ( -- )
0 BLK ! [COMPILE] [
BEGIN
[ F573 , ] ( RP!)
CR
7E ( ~) EMIT
QUERY INTERPRET
STATE @ 0=
IF ." ok" THEN
AGAIN ;
: XABORT ( -- )
[ F57C , ] ( SP! )
[COMPILE] FORTH
DEFINITIONS
XQUIT ;
' XABORT CFA UABORT !
-1 WARNING !
ABORT
---
* QDeLuxe 1.01 #260s Do you belong to FIG? Why not join today.
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/12/90)
Date: 07-09-90 (15:12) Number: 652 (Echo) To: JAN HOFLAND Refer#: NONE From: JOHN SOMERVILLE Read: NO Subj: HZ TIL IT HURTS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE I don't think you misrepresented anything. The systems I worked on about ten years ago were capable of 1-3 KHz providing one didn't mess with the amplitude. If you did mess with the frequency and the amplitude you got into a awful non-linear mess due to the feedback system (LVDTs, Load Cells), throw in the hydraulic system and it was time to go home. With your system you can enlarge the table from 2 to 3 dimensions and have linearity over the whole system, the 3rd dimension would handle the different displacements. Providing nothing went through the roof ( wall or floor ), the system should make it to the limitation of the RTX board. Or am I full of it? Thanks for the info. No doubt I will be asking you more questions as I get into the project. NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/12/90)
Date: 07-09-90 (22:11) Number: 653 (Echo)
To: JAN HOFLAND Refer#: NONE
From: DARRYL BIECH Read: NO
Subj: RTX Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Like everyone else, I enjoyed your presentation and particularly the
"feedback" capabilities that you mentioned. I got a little bit excited
today when I noticed an article in the April 1990 Electronics &
Technology Today which mentions a "knock" sensor used in programmed
automove ignition systems. The "knock" sensor is a piezo-electric
acceleromet which translates vibrations into signals which are
interpreted by some programmed system controlling the ignition timing.
Seeemed to me that your project could be used for this type of thing.
-d.b.
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (11/14/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 199 Tue Nov 13, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 04:54 EST In light of Harris' recently announced (via Phil Koopman) decision to halt further development of the RTX family, I'd like to open a discussion on the perceived reasons for this action. Are stack machines commercially non- viable? Or is Harris just feeling the need to tighten its belt, with the RTX program a convenient victim? My immediate purpose is a seminar I'm presenting on the RTX family at McMaster U. in a few weeks. I'd like to be able to comment on the market success of this machine, as well as the technical side. I'm looking for opinions from outside and -- to the extent permitted by nondisclosure rules -- inside Harris. (Comments on Novix are also welcome.) BTW, if anyone at Harris is willing to compile a small C benchmark for me, please let me know via this medium or (with luck) at bradford@maccs.mcmaster.ca . My attempts at Usenet email have bounced. - Brad ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
krl@jujeh.mlb.semi.harris.com (Ken Lyons) (11/14/90)
For starters, everything to follow is my opinion and not the official position of Harris. Besides, Friday is my last day there. I think the primary reason for cutting funds to the RTX line (which is not yet self-supporting) is that the market is down and sales are lousy. That doesn't necesssarily answer the question, "Why RTX and not something else?" It seems that presently the payback is better for other lines, so the decision appears to be made for short-term benifits, which is all too usual. In terms of long-term benifits, there are serious obsticles to overcome when introducing a new microprocessor architecture, market inertia for one. It appears a lot easier for a customer to stick with a given vendor than to relearn a new architecture. It is the path of least resistance to say, "We're an Intel house," or, "We're a Motorola house." It takes time to investigate all the possibilities so the easy or exciting ones are examined while the rest accumulate in a file cabinet somewhere. This is not to say that the big companies don't offer advantages: they have the critical mass of sales to provide 99% of the expensive support their customers want and still turn a profit. In addition to this, for a new processor to be exciting it must provide at least 2X obvious bang for the buck. When introducing a new architecture, the improvement factor has a large, application dependent range, so the advantage is not so obvious. If after considering all this, you still want to do something new, I would bet that the intellectual property rights to RTX could be picked up cheap. There were many ideas we had to improve the architecture that may be lost all because of a stubborn refusal to do things right the first time. All the same it's been fun; no regrets. Regards, Ken Lyons Hardware Designer, looking.
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.150715.28620@mlb.semi.harris.com>, krl@jujeh.mlb.semi.harris.com (Ken Lyons) writes: > For starters, everything to follow is my opinion and not the official > position of Harris. Besides, Friday is my last day there. I don't work for Harris now, so my opinion is strictly my own as well. Ken Lyons writes: > I think the primary reason for cutting funds to the RTX line (which is > not yet self-supporting) is that the market is down and sales are > lousy. That doesn't necessarily answer the question, "Why RTX and > not something else?" It seems that presently the payback is better > for other lines, so the decision appears to be made for short-term > benefits, which is all too usual. I think that the "market down/sales lousy" reason (which is superficially true) is more a convenient excuse for upper-level Harris management than a reality. From the market research I saw while at Harris, it was evident that it _always_ takes at least 3 years for a new proprietary processor to become self-sufficient (this means one with a new instruction set, not a next-generation compatible chip). You can't make money by selling one- and ten-piece orders to people building prototypes -- but you make lots of money a year or two later when they ramp up production. RTX has always been given insufficient resources (and now, insufficient time) to achieve success within Harris. Look at the Transputer -- about 10 years and perhaps just barely there (but, still funded and growing every year). It is true that Harris Semiconductor has a tremendous cash flow crunch. This, combined with a sector-wide deemphasis of digital technology spelled doom for RTX despite the fact that it was in reasonably good shape for long-term customer growth. So, the demise of RTX had almost nothing to do with technology problems. It had something to do with marketing (but, they were getting smarter and could probably have recovered if given the chance). It had something to do with Harris' problems producing low-cost RTX silicon on their old 2.0 micron fab line (RTX's can be made for much less than it cost Harris to make them, thus lowering price, but you really want to be on 1.0 micron technology to do it). It had a lot to do with cash flow (which is a stupid reason to cancel a new processor line when you have N large customers poised on placing large orders). It had even more to do with what Harris would like to call a "deemphasis" on digital technology, meaning that *any* new proprietary processor (stack, register, whatever) wouldn't fit into their plan of concentrating on analog, power, and mixed signal. I would say that RTX technology still makes sense for systems that must have high real-time performance at moderate cost. The question is, who is going to do it? Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 *** this space for rent ***
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (11/19/90)
Date: 11-14-90 (08:26) Number: 211 of 217 (Echo) To: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [BRAD] Refer#: 189 From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO Subj: FORTH ENGINES / HARRIS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Charles Johnsen, president of MISC, Inc., which designed the M-17 stack machine, opined to me recently that the problem with the RTX was that Harris was trying to take this uProc and go head to head with the giants of the general purpose microprocessor industry, whereas Charles feels that this sort of thing is a niche market and requires niche marketing techniques. MISC, Inc. aims to capitalize on a perceived descent of microprocessor design to the level of a cottage industry. Charles Johnsen predicts that before long, microprocessors will be custom-designed for control projects the same way that nowaday circuit boards are custom designed for control projects. NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth! <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/03/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 204 Sun Dec 02, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 00:02 CST Harris & the RTX & tears . I am sorry that Harris has made announcements that will discourage the use of the RTX2000 & RTX2001A in new designs. Perhaps, though, they did the honorable thing, rather than leading people on. . Could they, instead, have said something like: "The RTX processors are perfect. They are so good that they will work unchanged for the next 20 years. We promise to supply them come hell or high-water for at least the next 20 years. We won't build fancier development environments because they just don't need them." . Maybe that's why I'm not a semiconductor manufacturer. Damn it! They've already *spent* the money getting the chips working and writing the spec sheets and building their blue box and even (wasted?) a C compiler. Consider it a bubble gum part. Price it accordingly. Sell the RTX2001A for $15 in singles. Force people to use it on price alone whether they like it or not. (Make 'em an offer they can't refuse.) It worked a long time ago for the 6502! It could have worked again, I think. It might not even be too late. They already lost the up-front investment - what have they got to lose? Treat it almost like the hex inverter chips they still make and sell. What an opportunity existed. The window is almost closed, but there is still a crack. They don't have to support it. $15 in ones and no support - the Forth community will support it. Grass roots and all that. . -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/03/90)
Category 6, Topic 15
Message 205 Sun Dec 02, 1990
GARY-S at 06:53 EST
.... what Frank said.
<Harris could've, singles for $15,Forth community support, Stuff>
.....DITTOS !!!!!!
Gary gars@glsrk
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/03/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 206 Sun Dec 02, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 10:57 EST Yeah. Harris has just scared me off the RTX family, and by implication, off Harris digital products for life. Which is a pity; I could have used the RTX in my latest project if the price had been lower. But my greatest fear as a consultant is recommending a part which then evaporates; Harris has now completely blown my confidence in them as a sole-source supplier of *anything*. If they had just committed to continuing supply, I would have written my own damn tools. (BTW, Harris is in good company -- Intel. After Intel's hoopla a few years ago about becoming everyone's reliable "sole source", I've been lately calling them the "sole non-source".) When I was asked in '87, I told 'em that I could use a part with the RTX capabilities, but the price had to be below $50. I'm sorry it never made it; sorrier still because this seems (from previous comments) to be a result of Harris' clunky fabrication facilities and not an inherent limitation of the chip. Sounds like Harris can't even make a hex inverter for $15, Frank. Oh, well. Deep *SIGH* for lost opportunities. - Brad P.S. to everyone who answered my query about the RTX's demise, thanks VERY much. It helped a lot in my presentation last Friday. I could have had an RTX "sale" after that presentation, if the RTX was still a viable product. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
RAYBRO%HOLON%UTRC@UTRCGW.UTC.COM ("William R Brohinsky", ay) (12/03/90)
from Frank: `$15 in ones and no support - the Forth community will support it.' Agreed and seconded! With Phil K. to write books that are actually useful on the RTX machine, and outrageous numbers of places that chip could go, They'd be nuts not to do just that! (I have about three projects that I'd throw one into, if they were cheep, and 2 of those projects look like they could go production...) But I can't afford to persue a dying chip. Sadness. Tears. Anger. raybro
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (12/04/90)
In article <F5F7A398321F00857A@utrcgw.utc.com>, RAYBRO%HOLON%UTRC@UTRCGW.UTC.COM ("William R Brohinsky", ay) writes: > from Frank: `$15 in ones and no support - the Forth community will support > it.' The sad fact is that Harris can't sell an RTX for $15 (at least in quantities of interest to readers of this net). That is largely because they are using 2.0 micron (or 1.5 micron, depending whom you ask) technology. The lowest price I recall was about $33 for 8 MHz plastic plcc 2001A's in 1000s. It isn't that they're gratutitously overcharging, it's that they just can't make silicon cheaply. BUT, RTX-class chips could certainly be sold for $15 if you were using a 1.0 micron fab. Unfortunately, Harris' Melbourne 1.0 micron fab never made it on line before the digital "de-emphasis". Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 *** this space for rent ***
ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David Ritchie) (12/04/90)
I wish that the RTX was cheaper - I am doing disk controller firmware, and it would be nice to have a fast processor that did not eat up the majority of its cycle time doing instruction operand fetches! (Intel 80C196). The problem is that things like the RTX don't make the cut due to cost (of course, they can let the project be late by several months, but hey, engineering time is free past 40 hours :^>). Maybe it is time for a letter writing campaign.... -- Dave Ritchie ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/07/90)
Date: 12-03-90 (21:05) Number: 369 of 380
To: FRANK SERGEANT Refer#: 341
From: DENNIS MCCUNNEY Read: NO
Subj: FORTH ENGINES / HARRIS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
FS3 Treat it almost like the hex inverter chips they still make and
FS3 sell. What an opportunity existed. The window is almost
FS3 closed, but there is still a crack. They don't have to support
FS3 it. $15 in ones and no support - the Forth community will
FS3 support it. Grass roots and all that.
Er, how large do you perceive the Forth community to be? The
difficulty with semiconductor technology is the up-front cost:
designing, debugging, and tooling up for production. Actually *making*
one more isn't that expensive on an incremental cost basis, but adding
in the amortisation of the up-front cost changes the numbers *very*
quickly. It worked for the 6502 because millions of them wound up in
low-end Apple, Atari, and Commodore machines. I can't really see that
happening with the Harris chip.
-> MegaMail v2.01 #0:12/03/1990 - R/O Capable - Route to ->RUNNINGB
PCRelay:RUNNINGB -> #3 RelayNet (tm)
4.10 Running Board 2126541349/DS/2125191791/HST/
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/10/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 215 Sun Dec 09, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 14:55 CST PK> The sad fact is that Harris can't sell an RTX for $15 . Phil, I don't know what you mean when you say that. Do you mean that they can't do so and make a profit? Or, do mean no one would be willing to purchase it at that price? . I believe you mean the former. In that case, do you mean their marginal cost per chip exceeds $15? Or do you mean their all-in costs including amortizing all of the start up, development, engineering, technical writing, and the air-condititioning bills for the previously larger staff would exceed $15 per chip? I contend that at most only the marginal costs should be considered now. Consider the rest gone. Now they can get into the uP market "for free." . I think I understand your point about 2 micron vs 1 micron. If so, they can lose a little on each chip until they can convert to 1 micron. If the demand isn't there at $15 then they don't lose much 'cause they don't sell many pieces. If the demand IS there, then they convert to the profitable 1 micron. . Of course I don't know enough about the semiconductor business. Doesn't Harris own the entire former RCA semiconductor facilities? And the GE/Intersil facilities? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that among that conglomeration there ought to be the ability to make an already designed and debugged uP so it CAN be sold profitably for $15. . Part of my point is that I doubt the $33 for PLCCs in 1000s comes close to making them a profit if the project closes down as they will never recover their up front costs. But $15 in singles that lets the project continue could well make a profit year after year. . Of course the $15 is out of thin air. $12? $19.57? Take your pick. I HOPE they keep/obtain enough customers that it does continue, regardless of their pricing strategy. We won't know for sure if my plan would work unless they try it. What if they'd done it a year ago as an offensive move? . The way it looks to me now is they are planning to sell the RTX as a low volume specialty item at a specialty price. If so, maybe it will carry on year after year and pay for itself (all its development having been written off as a loss). I think with the low pricing I suggested it could have been turned into a high volume item and paid off all its development costs. I even see that as a remote possibility now (I'm ever the optimist). . I want to make it clear that I'm not asserting that anything I've said is correct. I have no details at all of Harris's specific circumstances, pressures, plans, and goals. I'm merely speculating. So, please continue to fill in any details you can about how the semiconductor industry works, etc. . -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/10/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 216 Sun Dec 09, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 14:55 CST DENNIS MCCUNNEY writes: . > Er, how large do you perceive the Forth community to be? The > difficulty with semiconductor technology is the up-front cost: > designing, debugging, and tooling up for production. Actually > *making* one more isn't that expensive on an incremental cost basis, > but adding in the amortisation of the up-front cost changes the > numbers *very* quickly. It worked for the 6502 because millions of > them wound up in low-end Apple, Atari, and Commodore machines. I > can't really see that happening with the Harris chip. . . Er, I think we have a misunderstanding. I was not saying that the Forth community would PURCHASE the chips in such volume to cause the RTX to succeed. I meant that it would write the tools, compilers, whatever - as it has already done (and stand ready to write the applications). . Your next point is the same as mine, but with perhaps a different interpretation: they have already SPENT the money for those up-front costs. . I believe you have it exactly backwards. The 6502 was used in the Apple, Atari, Commodore machines BECAUSE it was cheap. Aggressive pricing greatly undercut the competition, forcing even people who didn't like the chip to use it. And, I might add, it was used in at least some of machines because poor grass-roots hardware hackers could afford the chip, used it, and were therefore familiar with it. . I'm saying that is my OPINION (which I may not be qualified to possess) that Harris HAD (and may still have with very aggressive action and pricing) a similar opportunity to price the RTX so people would HAVE to use it whether they liked it or not. THIS pricing could have opened doors their sales force could never open merely on the processor's technical merits. . I rank the factors in this order: PRICE SECOND SOURCING &/OR CONFIDENCE IN CONTINUED DELIVERY PRICE PRICE TECHNICAL SUPPORT TOOLS PRICE YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF'S PREFERENCES . Obviously there is a LOT of room for disagreement with my scale. . I'll look forward to further news and opinions about the RTX. . -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
mef@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Fraeman) (12/11/90)
In article <2078.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 6, Topic 15 >Message 215 Sun Dec 09, 1990 >F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 14:55 CST > > PK> The sad fact is that Harris can't sell an RTX for $15 > . > Phil, I don't know what you mean when you say that. Do you mean that they >can't do so and make a profit? Or, do mean no one would be willing to >purchase it at that price? > . I don't mean to speak for Phil but you might consider some simple economic facts of life here. A CMOS mask set probably costs 20K$-30K$ depending on the number of layers needed. A dedicated run of a dozen or so 4" wafers for a 2u CMOS process probably costs 25K$ although you might be able to do it for a bit less if can keep volume up. The nice 84 pin PGA ceramic packages might cost as little as $20 each if you by them in >10K lots (ie order 200K$ worth of packages at a time). In small quantities I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they cost up to $80! A 4" wafer probably can hold 40-50 die the size of the RTX. Lets say you get 50% yield (pretty good for a die this size) then a wafer run will get you 250 good chips for your 25K$ or $100 for silicon alone. Note I didn't add any costs to probe the die on your tester. Also note how sensitive the cost/die is to yield and also note I have absolutely no idea what the real yield is. For obvious reasons, the foundries guard their yield numbers more then the family jewels since you can infer the financial health of company if you know it. Contact printing is commonly used in volume production so the mask set only lasts for 20 wafer lots or so. Therefore the mask costs you about (25K$/((200 wafers) * (25 die/wafer))) or about $5/die. If a projection system is used instead then masks last much longer but the equipment used is a lot more expensive. So to summarize, the whole thing is about: $100 silicon $ 5 masks $ 20 package ---- $125 materials alone! Now what about the labor to package the parts, distribute them to customers, testing, and of course you should get at least some amount of profit for your effort? To me at least this kind of an argument shows several why the industry is headed the way it is. A 1u version of an RTX chip would be about 1/4 the area so 4 times as many die get built in each wafer lot. pushing to greater density A 6" wafer has about twice as much area so you'd get about 500 good chips per lot at not much greater lot cost although your production equipment costs a lot more. Finally plastic packages are cheaper although not as efficient getting heat out so maximum chip speed is lowered because the junctions are hotter. Marty Fraeman mef@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu 301-953-5000, x8360 Room 13-s587 Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20723
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (12/11/90)
> F.SERGEANT [Frank] writes: > PK> The sad fact is that Harris can't sell an RTX for $15 > ... I contend that at most only the marginal costs should be > considered now. Consider the rest gone. Now they can get into the uP market > "for free." Frank, I don't mean to vent all this at you personally, but I'm worn down with discussions of the form "why can't Harris give us a break and price the RTX cheaply for the Forth community -- we'll support it ourselves". The response may be uncharacteristically blunt (then again, maybe not ;->), but I hope to drive home the reality of the situation. Once again, I do not speak officially for Harris. A) Harris doesn't care about the Forth community. Individuals in the former RTX group did (mostly Tom Hand, Rick VanNorman and myself), but we're all gone now. Harris Semiconductor (the corporation) cares only about making a profit, not about the success of Forth. And, they're in the middle of a nasty cash crunch, so they're not likely to cut anyone any slack at all. Their current strategy is to "de-emphasize" digital (that's PR talk, you know what they really mean). RTX is digital --> it has been de-emphasized. The RTX was given special treatment while Harris looked for external support funding (otherwise, I would have been unemployed in June instead of November). It didn't happen; case closed. It can be argued that the RTX would still be alive today if it had immediately concentrated on C instead of the "lunatic fringe" Forth community (I have heard these actual words used to describe it within Harris). Certainly that was the long range plan developed in the past year. The total Forth market for RTX is too small to make it worth Harris' while to pursue, at *any* realistic price or profit margin. B) Harris can't/won't sell the RTX cheaply (does it *really* matter which is the case? -- but I truly believe that "can't" is the actual situation). They are geared up for high-margin medium-volume specialty chips (the 80C286 is an exception). They have high overhead (don't forget, even without support they have to pay for production, storage, shipping, order entry system, local sales offices, distributor markup). With 2 micron technology, it is just very hard to get the price down. It is impossible with sales of less than 10,000-100,000 at a whack (large production runs allow improved yield as the fab process is tweaked for that product). C) Harris can't afford to sell the RTX "without support". They run the risk of getting a big customer for other products upset with poor support. Putting the Harris nameplate on implies a particular level of support. I suppose they could put a different "generic" nameplate on -- but why bother? Harris has no vested interest in seeing Forth engines succeed in the general marketplace, and the $$$ aren't there to justify it. D) One of the serious problems the RTX group faced was that Harris killed the pre-production 1 micron process lines we were planning to use. IMHO, they were already dead and we simply got the coroner's report. At last check, there was no reasonable path for RTX within Harris (including RCA, GE, Intersil) to 1 micron except for military products. Of course, things may have changed and my information may be inaccurate. But, I recall a lot of effort looking for external silicon vendors (think of what it implies when Harris asks someone else to make silicon!). Don't expect any breaks from Harris -- they don't perceive that they owe anything to the Forth community! So, if the Forth community wants the chip, how can it get it? 1) Someone break a few piggy banks and place that order for 100,000 pieces. I bet you get a good price. You might even get Harris to form a support group. 2) Someone buy a license for the RTX and produce it on a 1.0 micron fab (less up-front cash than method 1, and probably smarter too). Be ready to do complete marketing and support. If you can't get orders for 50,000-100,000 parts, I bet you go bankrupt. If the orders come in 1 or 10 at a time, I bet you also go bankrupt. 3) Buy chips from Silicon Composers or wherever (hey, how come they aren't selling at $15 either?) In summary -- ENOUGH ALREADY!! Harris isn't going to wave a magic wand and make things better! They had excellent business reasons (not technical ones) for what they did. None of these reasons had much to do directly with the RTX. Get serious and take action, or stop beating the dead horse! If you want to get serious, the first step is to pick up the phone and talk to Fred Hawkes at Harris (407) 724-7823. If you can't do that, you haven't earned the right to complain, gripe, grumble, mutter, protest, whine, wheedle, or demand better treatment. If you expect Harris to take any further action on its own, you are sadly mistaken. Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 *** this space for rent *** I don't speak for Harris; I don't even work for them.
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/17/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 223 Sat Dec 15, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 17:21 CST Thanks to Phil Koopman & Marty Fraeman for posting more details on the realities of the semiconductor manufacturing business. Phil, I can understand that you have had "ENOUGH ALREADY!!" of discussions of the RTX and what Harris should or shouldn't have done or now do. However, all sorts of topics on the Forth net are taken to absurd extremes and I don't particularly see why this should be any different. No one has to reply to a topic he is no longer interested in (although I do appreciate the details you supplied). I want to make it clear that I was not asking that Harris lower the price of the RTX to $15 each in singles because they owed anything to me or the Forth community. No, no, no! I was suggesting a strategy that I thought might have been in Harris's *own* interests. I see from your & Marty's comments that there are a number of reasons why they cannot/will not try out my suggestion and why it might not have worked if they had. They possibly have made the best choice. Regardless, it is *their* choice to make! I have never suggested otherwise. I may be wrong, but I want to be wrong for the right reasons. This very strategy was successfully employed for the 6502, if what I've heard is correct. Considering the advances in semiconductor manufacturing technology that presumably have taken place since the 6502 was introduced, and having heard that the NOVIX chip, upon which the RTX2001A was based, had "around 4000 gates," I assumed that the RTX2001A even with its added on-board stacks should fall into the relatively cheap to produce microprocessor category. As I've said from the outset, I'm merely speculating. Also, my hope was that such a low price would have attracted customers from all over who needed the speed (or who could trade off that speed to eliminate other hardware in the system). I am not referring to Forth enthusiasts, just ordinary users of microprocessors. "Making 'em an offer they couldn't refuse." Anyway, I'm not asking that Harris do this now. I think it is too late. Maybe Harris never could have done it. You are speculating that my idea would not (have) work(ed), but we know for sure that the approach Harris took also did not work. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest alternatives. -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/17/90)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 224 Sat Dec 15, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 17:21 CST Clyde Phillips writes CP> I'd also welcome any discussion of creating "generic" FORTH CP> engines using FPGA's that WOULD BE affordable Yes, this sound very interesting to me. I considered it and would still like to design my own "for fun." Every time I've looked it over and priced the Xilinx chips or whatever, it has seemed that it would still be cheaper to buy a NOVIX or RTX or SC32, especially if I considered the design time. Do you know any current prices (in singles) for any PLDs within the range of "4000 gates" or more? It would seem they should get cheap because of their possible large market, but they didn't seem cheap a year or so ago when I last looked. Your idea of a generic or PD design answers my objection about the design costs, more or less. I even liked the idea of Phil Koopman's 16 bit WISC based on 74xxXX chips (and 74xx181 ALUs). I'm tired, though, of wire-wrapping, and probably won't do much more unless I get well paid for it. That was one of the appealing aspects of the large programmable logic chips. I could do much the same thing, but "wire-wrap" them very quickly with a PLD programmer. Marty suggests that we're unlikely to get the speed we'd like, and I believe him. It is a shame, because it is an idea that "ought to work." I'm hoping to hear from you and others on how it could really work. I think break-throughs often start out as just such an idea. "You know, it OUGHT to be possible to do such & such." "How?" "I don't know yet, it's just a feeling so far." Like the electric light bulb, perhaps. Anyway, I have another one of these "there ought to be a way ..."s to toss out. I don't really see how it can work yet, but it feels like there ought to be a way. We've got all these mass-produced CHEAP microprocessors, such as the Z80, 6802, Z8, Super-8, even 68000s. You can probably find some of these from time to time for under a dollar each in singles! There OUGHT to be a way to combine them to make a super powerful processor super cheap! I'm not necessarily talking about mixing families. Perhaps a board with 8 6802s on it. Maybe we'd pay a little (a lot?) more to use one-time programmable Z8s etc so we don't have to wire up separate EPROMs, etc. I think the 68HC11s are overpriced at this time for combining as I've suggested. There are problems. Do we connect them in parallel so each processor works on 8 bits of a wider data-item, say 4 across - giving 32 bits? If so, we have the terrible delay waiting for the carry between each stage. We might as well let a single processor do its own multiple precision math. Or, would we "pipe-line" it, so that even though the 32-bit operation takes 4 (or more likely 8 or more) times as long (as the others must read something external to get the carry), as soon as each processor finished its part of the 32-bit op it would be free to start the next one. So, here, I don't really see where we've gained anything. Instead, perhaps the stacks and registers (for the Forth machine) are NOT kept inside the cheap micros, but accessed through external I/O. Maybe this offers a speed advantage somehow. If we have to put together very much hardware, we are back to the situation where it is cheaper to pay the price for a commercial Forth engine. Perhaps the separate micros could specialize somehow, rather than working in parallel on different parts of the large word. All of this leads us into the maze of complexity of parallel processing. At this stage it is just a dream. CP> The Zilog thing is does anyone have FORTH's for the Super Z-8 Yeah, I have a Forth running on a Super 8 that I've bread boarded. Other than some glue chips it consists of the Super8 chip, a 32K static RAM chip, and an 8K EPROM into which I put a version of Pygmy Forth. I use my PC XT as a terminal and disk server for it, over a serial line. I haven't touched it in probably a year. As soon as I get caught up (ha ha) I'm going to do some more work with it. -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/11/91)
Category 6, Topic 15
Message 228 Sun Feb 10, 1991
F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 15:16 CST
David McIntyre writes: .
DM> After I sent in my entry to the RTX contest, I realized that I've
DM> never heard anything about either the winners or what other people
DM> tried to do. How about if people who won the EB posted some of their
DM> ideas, winning or not? .
Yes, well, I originally expected Harris to make the announcements any day,
so even after I was notified I kept fairly quiet. Here's a list of the
winners: .
Frank Sergeant - First Prize Winner - Disk Drive Aligner
Rob Chapman - Best Hardware Entry - Simple Sampler
James H. Vogeley - Best Software Entry - Eye Tracker
Harry Winter - Hardware Runner-Up - Digital Pocket Oscilloscope
Matthew Mercaldo - Software Runner-Up
- Real Time System Motor Controller .
I attended the Embedded Systems Conference near San Francisco last fall and
stood by the Harris booth demonstrating my disk drive aligner to passers by.
All the above entries were on display, except for the Eye Tracker. I was
told it wouldn't display well at the conference because of its need for a
darkened booth. I had a good, but tiring, time. I met some very interesting
people, including (no, I don't dare say, or I'll be sure to leave someone
out!). The entries each had their own PC connected to the RTX board so that
the programs could be downloaded, except for Rob's. His booted from battery-
backed RAM and had no need of the extra PC. Unfortunately, only the boards
and a very brief summary sheet were displayed. It would have been so much
nicer if the full write-ups, schematics, and diagrams had also been on
display. .
Yes, I'd love to hear from other entrants, about their ideas, etc. .
-- Frank
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpavbalen@ehviea.ine.philips.nl (A.G.M. van Balen) (02/12/91)
Could someone make the entries of the Harris contest available? Especially the Eye tracker and pocket 'scope seem interesting! Thanks! Auke
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/13/91)
Date: 02-08-91 (16:09) Number: 1086 of 1110 To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 1040 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: FORTH ENGINES / HARRIS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) To: Dave McIntyre; RE RTX contest: Didn't win anythng in the 2nd round ( I barely sent in a valid entry) but my first round entry was: control for a pipe intersection cutting machine, to ritate a pipe, move an oxy-fuel or plasma torch axially, and rotate the torch angle to vary the bevel, keeping surface speed constant. (thats rotate pipe above) Since then I havent yet worked out an uncoupled robust torch rotater; but I have used the New Micros 6811 board with a 2-axis interface I already designed for another application to control cuts with a constant bevel. Prototype works great. Intersections are 1. Saddle 2. Offset perpendicular 3. Oblique intersection 4. Mitre. In the entries for contest I didnt send any algorithms as i would consider them proprietary for now. PCRelay:PROPC -> #288 RelayNet (tm) 4.10 Pittsburgh ProPC BBS (412) 321-6645 <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/12/91)
Category 6, Topic 15 Message 234 Mon Mar 11, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 02:15 CST Look for details of my RTX contest entry starting in the next issue of The Computer Journal. Look for the April issue of Embedded Systems Programming for an article about certain techniques I used. . I just returned from the sigForth convention in San Antonio. The editor of the sigForth newsletter would like to publish some more contest entries, whether they won or not. Contact Paul Frenger at P.O. Box 820506, Houston, TX 77282-0506 or on GEnie as P.FRENGER. . -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp