geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) (08/03/90)
This is basically a flame directed at AMD. AMD have dropped plans to supply PALASM90 for Suns and Apollos. As a result we can no longer use their new wonderful MACH series. (our $5000 PLD package doesn't support them). Our agents say - well, you can use a PC version!. Who wants to have to use an isolated PC in this day and age?! Supplying engineering software for only PCs doesn't make much sense when most REAL design is done on workstations. Come on AMD, get real! Supply PALASM90 for the Suns - or we'll be the first to hassle you for the info we need to write our own PLD software. -- Geoff Bull (Senior Engineer) Phone : (+61 48) 68 3490 Highland Logic Pty. Ltd. Fax : (+61 48) 68 3474 348-354 Argyle St ACSnet : geoff@highland.oz.au Moss Vale, 2577, AUSTRALIA
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/05/90)
In article <833@hls0.hls.oz> geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) writes: |AMD have dropped plans to supply PALASM90 for Suns and Apollos. I don't speak for AMD, in fact, I'm not even working for them right now, but I couldn't resist: PALASM90 for Suns? Which Suns? Sun-3? Sun-386i? Sparc? Which OS of the week? (when we upgraded the OS, it broke "less".) Which window system? Suntools? Sunview? X? News? Now take all these choices and multiply them together. Sun-3 with X. Sun-3 with News. Sun-3 with Sunview. Sparc with X. Sparc with News. Sparc with Sunview. etc. I won't even talk about Apollo/Aegis/DomainUx/USG/BSD... I suggest you buy a nice cheap and fast PC, get PC-NFS for networking and MKS toolkit to make the command set somewhat like Unix. You might even find you have a nice word processor in the bargain. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (08/05/90)
In article <1990Aug5.070528.4522@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: Gee, Phil, usually you can be counted on for rational postings ;-) ;-) >PALASM90 for Suns? Which Suns? Sun-3? Sun-386i? Sparc? Which OS of >the week? (when we upgraded the OS, it broke "less".) Which window >system? Suntools? Sunview? X? News? Now take all these choices and >multiply them together. Sun-3 with X. Sun-3 with News. Sun-3 with >Sunview. Sparc with X. Sparc with News. Sparc with Sunview. etc. ^^^^ NeWS; palasm under rn would be fun :-) Let's try this: you've (AMD) focused on a particular instance of PC technology, ie PC running MS-DOS, presumably going directly to the screen (ega/vga?). You could have chosen MS-DOS + Windows/3.0, MS-DOS + Desqview/X, or run under OS/2, QNX, etc. Let's remap AMD's PC or die decision into a similar cutset of Sun technology: port your tools to Sparc, running Sunview initially. Just as your PC stuff may eventually have to be moved on top of Windows 3.0, you may have to move from Sunview to OpenLook. The truth of software, and I assume you know this, is that it always entails ongoing investment in maintenance, support, and upgrades. If you guys can't figure this out, I would be happy to do it for you for some AMD con$ulting dollars :-) After all, if Lotus Corp was able to make their peace with Suns, AMD should too... FYI, companies with much less development bucks than Lotus & AMD are porting from PC -> Sparc, eg P-CAD, CUPL, Pads-PCB, etc. >I suggest you buy a nice cheap and fast PC, get PC-NFS for networking >and MKS toolkit to make the command set somewhat like Unix. You >might even find you have a nice word processor in the bargain. Sorry, but this is becoming less of an option for many of us in hardware land. My machine of choice for any engineering task is the sparcstation - if your tools don't run there, I will not buy them. >Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com Rick Spanbauer Ameristar PS. We do, or at least used to do, a lot of business with AMD (for pals, and lance enet stuff) - so consider this message as constructive criticism from a customer. Observe too that a smallish company named "Sun" uses quite a lot of your stuff in their workstations, notably the sparcstation.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug5.161336.18508@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: | Gee, Phil, usually you can be counted on for rational postings ;-) ;-) Well, you wouldn't want to be too conventional, would you? :-) | Let's try this: you've (AMD) focused on a particular instance You probably don't mean it this way but I have to be sure the readers here all understand. I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR AMD. THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION. I'M NOT EVEN WORKING FOR AMD RIGHT NOW. | of PC technology, ie PC running MS-DOS, presumably going directly | to the screen (ega/vga?). You could have chosen MS-DOS + Windows/3.0, | MS-DOS + Desqview/X, or run under OS/2, QNX, etc. Let's remap Sure, but why? DOS with a monochrome monitor works just fine and is nice and cheap. The choices you listed only limit the number of platforms, and increases cost without providing any benefit. | AMD's PC or die decision into a similar cutset of Sun technology: port | your tools to Sparc, running Sunview initially. Just as your PC stuff So how does the cost of a Sparc compare to a PC? How does the user base compare? | may eventually have to be moved on top of Windows 3.0, you may have | to move from Sunview to OpenLook. The truth of software, and I assume Which supports the contention that workstation support is a large cost. | you know this, is that it always entails ongoing investment in | maintenance, support, and upgrades. If you guys can't figure this Which doesn't mean that if you are spending one million dollars a year on one platform, it's ok to spend two million dollars a year for two platforms. | dollars :-) After all, if Lotus Corp was able to make their peace | with Suns, AMD should too... FYI, companies with much less | development bucks than Lotus & AMD are porting from PC -> Sparc, | eg P-CAD, CUPL, Pads-PCB, etc. You seem to forget that these companies are making big bucks off their software. How much does 123 cost? How about Pads-PCB? PALASM has been free in the past and even now it is not very expensive. | Sorry, but this is becoming less of an option for many of us in | hardware land. My machine of choice for any engineering task is the | sparcstation - if your tools don't run there, I will not buy them. This is interesting because I used to only use Unix also. I started using PCs for exactly this reason: to run PALASM. Then I found they weren't that bad and now I think they are very useful. Anyway, it's only my opinion. I'll add that this posting is like walking into a Sun User's Group and saying "MIPS is good stuff", because anyone reading this is almost guaranteed to be using Unix. But that doesn't mean Unix is the right home for PALASM, it just means all the readers here like Unix. There are a lot of users who are not represented in this forum. So I'm not going to be convinced by raw votes here. |PS. We do, or at least used to do, a lot of business with AMD (for pals, and | lance enet stuff) - so consider this message as constructive criticism | from a customer. Observe too that a smallish company named "Sun" uses | quite a lot of your stuff in their workstations, notably the | sparcstation. What about this? When QD comes out with their DV/X, why don't you just open up an X window to a PC which is your PALASM server? -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug5.161336.18508@ameristar>, rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: > The truth of software, and I assume > you know this, is that it always entails ongoing investment in > maintenance, support, and upgrades. If you guys can't figure this > out, I would be happy to do it for you for some AMD con$ulting > dollars :-) After all, if Lotus Corp was able to make their peace > with Suns, AMD should too... FYI, companies with much less > development bucks than Lotus & AMD are porting from PC -> Sparc, > eg P-CAD, CUPL, Pads-PCB, etc. ^^^^ Hey, if AMD isn't making any $$$ off of their software, and it's just a large lump in the customer support budget, they would probably prefer that you go to a third party. markz@ssc.uucp
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug5.161336.18508@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: | Sorry, but this is becoming less of an option for many of us in | hardware land. My machine of choice for any engineering task is the | sparcstation - if your tools don't run there, I will not buy them. So what are you willing to pay? Is it worth $2,000? How much does CUPL on a Sun cost? What about ABEL? (this is for informational purposes only, to satisfy my curiosity. AMD has nothing to do with this article.) -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
jja@etana.tut.fi (Ahola Jari) (08/06/90)
From article <970@ssc.UUCP>, by markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier): > In article <1990Aug5.161336.18508@ameristar>, rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >> The truth of software, and I assume >> you know this, is that it always entails ongoing investment in >> maintenance, support, and upgrades. If you guys can't figure this >> out, I would be happy to do it for you for some AMD con$ulting >> dollars :-) After all, if Lotus Corp was able to make their peace >> with Suns, AMD should too... FYI, companies with much less >> development bucks than Lotus & AMD are porting from PC -> Sparc, >> eg P-CAD, CUPL, Pads-PCB, etc. > ^^^^ > > Hey, if AMD isn't making any $$$ off of their software, and it's just > a large lump in the customer support budget, they would probably prefer > that you go to a third party. > > markz@ssc.uucp Why couldn't AMD just place the software in PD as it was originally- someone would port it to for instance Suns and there we have a PALASM for workstations. (yeah, I used the first FORTRAN PALASM ;-) -jja Jari 'jja' Ahola |Tampere University of Technology, Signal Processing Lab Opiskelijankatu 16A12 |P.O. Box 527, 33101 Tampere, Finland 33720 Tampere, Finland|Tel (intl) 358 31 162708 (work)/358 31 174009 (home) Puh. 931-174009 |Net address: jja@tut.fi, AHOLA@FINTUTA (BITNET), bix:jja
dwg@bpdsun1.uucp (David W. Glessner) (08/07/90)
In article <1990Aug6.004614.24315@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > [ justifications for supporting PALASM90 on PC ] Why not release PALASM source and let the workstation folks port it to their favorite machines? (I have mixed feelings about GNU licensing, but PALASM may be a good candidate.) We moved from PALASM on a PC (2.23A?) to ABEL on a Sun and have been quite pleased. PALASM's "user interface" was a pain and the program crashed too often. I hope things have improved. -- David WU9A quintro!bpdsun1!dwg@lll-winken.llnl.gov uunet!tiamat!quintro!bpdsun1!dwg
craig@calvin.UUCP (Craig S. Cochran) (08/07/90)
In article <1990Aug5.070528.4522@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >PALASM90 for Suns? Which Suns? Sun-3? Sun-386i? Sparc? Which OS of >the week? (when we upgraded the OS, it broke "less".) Which window >system? Suntools? Sunview? X? News? Now take all these choices and >multiply them together. Sun-3 with X. Sun-3 with News. Sun-3 with >Sunview. Sparc with X. Sparc with News. Sparc with Sunview. etc. Only two necessary: Sun-3 and Sun-4 (Sparc), both under Sunview, would probably cover 90% of Sun's installed base. >I suggest you buy a nice cheap and fast PC, get PC-NFS for networking >and MKS toolkit to make the command set somewhat like Unix. You >might even find you have a nice word processor in the bargain. User's shouldn't have to buy more hardware to use a simple PLD programming tool. Most people have already invested mucho-$ in Sun or other workstations to run CAE or layout software. I would hate to tell our (Valid's) users they had to purchase more hardware (especially DOS - yuck!) just to interface from our CAE software to PALASM. In fact, I would probably recommend a different PLD solution (such as MINC) simply for the reason that it runs on the same hardware under the same OS. Is AMD only interested in the small companies doing limited design work on PCs? -- Craig S. Cochran Valid Logic Systems Path: {sun,decwrl}!valid!ccochran 2820 Orchard Parkway Voice: 408/944-8037 San Jose, CA 95134
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/07/90)
In article <1990Aug6.153729.6462@funet.fi> jja@etana.tut.fi (Ahola Jari) writes: |Why couldn't AMD just place the software in PD as it was originally- someone |would port it to for instance Suns and there we have a PALASM for workstations. I don't speak for AMD but I suspect there is concern that the source might be used by other PAL makers to improve their product. |(yeah, I used the first FORTRAN PALASM ;-) So did I. On a VAX running BSD. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
moss (Barry Moss) (08/07/90)
This article is a follow-up to posts by Phil Ngai and Rick Spanbauer discussing why AMD's PALASM is not available on Sun workstations and runs only under MS-DOS. As technology leader for PLDs, FPGAs and ASICs at Mobile Data (approx. 900 employees world wide) I thought that I would add my two bits to this discussion. 1. Why do companies like AMD write and sell programs like PALASM? Usually when a semiconductor manufacturer starts getting into software, its to provide a way for their customers to start using their products. As an example, almost all of the FPGA manufacturers (Actel, Altera, Plus Logic, Plessey, Xilinx, etc.) offer some sort of software support for their products; otherwise the engineers would probably not try using their products. The large majority of engineers have access to a PC compatible computer, so this is the primary base that the semi manufacturers will support. 2. Why do I want software tools that will run on my Sun workstation? Well, every hardware designer at MDI has a Sun 3 workstation on his or her desk. The only PC's we have in engineering are a few lab machines for running emulators. So why should I try to justify a) requisitioning another computer to further clutter my desk (Management: You want a Sun and a PC!!!!) or b) try to schedule time on one of the lab PCs? As we've told a number of vendors recently, if you want us to use your parts we need tools (not necessarily free) which will run on Sun workstations. Interestingly enough, most of the FPGA vendors have announced they will have Sun compatible versions of their software. Some of them will even link up with our CAD system (Valid Logic)! 3. What do Sun users do for support to design PALs, etc? Well, if you have enough money to buy a Sun, then you should be prepared to pay for a commercial PLD design package (like ABEL or Minc) which runs on a Sun. Of cource, if some of the PLD/FPGA vendors start to realize that they are losing business by not providing support for the Sun or other workdstations, then maybe they will reconsider their PCs only position Barry Moss Design Engineer
garvey@cmic.UUCP (Joe Garvey) (08/08/90)
> >> The truth of software, and I assume > >> you know this, is that it always entails ongoing investment in > >> maintenance, support, and upgrades. If you guys can't figure this > >> out, I would be happy to do it for you for some AMD con$ulting > >> dollars :-) After all, if Lotus Corp was able to make their peace > >> with Suns, AMD should too... FYI, companies with much less > >> development bucks than Lotus & AMD are porting from PC -> Sparc, > >> eg P-CAD, CUPL, Pads-PCB, etc. > > ^^^^ > > > > Hey, if AMD isn't making any $$$ off of their software, and it's just > > a large lump in the customer support budget, they would probably prefer > > that you go to a third party. > > > > markz@ssc.uucp > > > Why couldn't AMD just place the software in PD as it was originally- someone > would port it to for instance Suns and there we have a PALASM for workstations > (yeah, I used the first FORTRAN PALASM ;-) > I too used (and used and used) the first Fortran version (actually there were two programs (PALASM20 and PALASM24)... I actually ended up doing quite a few patches... But it worked. And that's all I really needed. A simple way to generate the file and simulate a few test vectors. I got the last version of AMD PALASM that was public source code. And that's what we use. AMD no longer provides a tool on HP/UNIX systems. Part of this is that they paid a third party to write a new front end. (Couldn't read the texts on yacc/lex (bison/flex) ehh? :-)) They can't distribute this source. I feel really bad that this occurred. It clearly indicates that the folks doing the marketing feel no need to supply tools across all machines. I wonder if AMD notices understands that new parts only get designed in if I can get the tools to design them in? For the HP, we're talking serious $$. I suspect other workstation users face the same problem. The designs don't suffer badly using 22v10's, so that's all we use. That's all we have tools for. If elm, news, perl, etc can work on almost every machine, why can't AMD use the users to support PALASM. There are folks like myself that have a long standing interest in PALASM, that HAVE patched/maintained it, if AMD co-ordinated, PALASM could have a life of its own. One engineer, part time... no serious $$ involved. That's my 2 cents worth. -- Joe Garvey UUCP: {apple,backbone}!versatc!mips!cmic!garvey California Microwave Internet: garvey%cmic@mips.com 990 Almanor Ave HP Desk: garvey (cmic@mips.com) / hp1900/ux Sunnyvale, Ca, 94086
geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) (08/08/90)
In article <970@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: > >Hey, if AMD isn't making any $$$ off of their software, and it's just >a large lump in the customer support budget, they would probably prefer >that you go to a third party. OK, except third parties don't support AMDs newest chips AMD used to give away source for PALASM; they don't do that anymore so they obviously think there's something in it for them! Also, they no longer publish the information you need to create fuse maps or build a programmer (can't say I would want to do the latter!) Anyway the agents here charged us A$150 for it which presumably covers the cost of the media and the manual. Frankly, if they want to make $$$ out of it we're prepared to pay $500 (say) for a Sun version (but only if the PC version is also $500) -- Geoff Bull (Senior Engineer) Phone : (+61 48) 68 3490 Highland Logic Pty. Ltd. Fax : (+61 48) 68 3474 348-354 Argyle St ACSnet : geoff@highland.oz.au Moss Vale, 2577, AUSTRALIA
geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug7.040411.28660@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1990Aug6.153729.6462@funet.fi> >jja@etana.tut.fi (Ahola Jari) writes: >|Why couldn't AMD just place the software in PD as it was originally- someone >|would port it to for instance Suns and there we have a PALASM for workstations. > >I don't speak for AMD but I suspect there is concern that the source >might be used by other PAL makers to improve their product. Balls! I don't speak for my company, but I would volunteer to do some of the port. Maybe we should organise a GNU PALASM! -- Geoff Bull (Senior Engineer) Phone : (+61 48) 68 3490 Highland Logic Pty. Ltd. Fax : (+61 48) 68 3474 348-354 Argyle St ACSnet : geoff@highland.oz.au Moss Vale, 2577, AUSTRALIA
geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug7.162347.1597@mdivax1.uucp> mdivax1!moss (Barry Moss) writes: >This article is a follow-up to posts by Phil Ngai and Rick Spanbauer discussing >why AMD's PALASM is not available on Sun workstations and runs only under >MS-DOS. >2. Why do I want software tools that will run on my Sun workstation? > Well, every hardware designer at MDI has a Sun 3 workstation on his or > her desk. The only PC's we have in engineering are a few lab machines > for running emulators. So why should I try to justify a) requisitioning > another computer to further clutter my desk (Management: You want a > Sun and a PC!!!!) or b) try to schedule time on one of the lab PCs? Brings back memories of the days when I had a Macintosh for documentation, a PC running DOG for using CUPL, and another PC running Daisy DNIX for schematic entry. One of the bean counters came through one day and I had to write a report on why engineers need THREE computers. > As we've told a number of vendors recently, if you want us to use > your parts we need tools (not necessarily free) which will run on > Sun workstations. Interestingly enough, most of the FPGA vendors > have announced they will have Sun compatible versions of their > software. Some of them will even link up with our CAD system (Valid > Logic)! Every engineer here has a Sun 3 or 4. We have one PC to run software for those applications only available under the DOG operting system. I know of numerous organisations that are turfing there PCs and getting Suns for their engineers. I know my productivity has doubled since getting a Sun (except when I have to use the DOG PC) We use Valid too! >3. What do Sun users do for support to design PALs, etc? > Well, if you have enough money to buy a Sun, then you should be > prepared to pay for a commercial PLD design package (like ABEL or > Minc) which runs on a Sun. Of cource, if some of the PLD/FPGA > vendors start to realize that they are losing business by not > providing support for the Sun or other workdstations, then maybe > they will reconsider their PCs only position > Anyway, I nice fast cheap PC is know longer a reality A Sun 4/20 (SPARC SLC) with 8MB DRAM and 200MB disk sells in this country for around A$8000 (US$6240). A similarly configured 486 costs about double that, a 386 about the same! SO PCs just don't make sense anymore! -- Geoff Bull (Senior Engineer) Phone : (+61 48) 68 3490 Highland Logic Pty. Ltd. Fax : (+61 48) 68 3474 348-354 Argyle St ACSnet : geoff@highland.oz.au Moss Vale, 2577, AUSTRALIA
agodwin@acorn.co.uk (Adrian Godwin) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug5.070528.4522@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <833@hls0.hls.oz> geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) writes: >|AMD have dropped plans to supply PALASM90 for Suns and Apollos. > >I don't speak for AMD, in fact, I'm not even working for them right >now, but I couldn't resist: > >PALASM90 for Suns? Which Suns? Sun-3? Sun-386i? Sparc? Which OS of >the week? (when we upgraded the OS, it broke "less".) Which window >system? Suntools? Sunview? X? News? Now take all these choices and >multiply them together. Sun-3 with X. Sun-3 with News. Sun-3 with >Sunview. Sparc with X. Sparc with News. Sparc with Sunview. etc. > What's the big issue over supporting PALASM on multiple machines ? the original PALASM, or PLPL (also from AMD) used a straightforward command line interface that did the job of converting a written input to a JEDEC textfile output perfectly adequately (within the limitations of PALASM's syntax). Who needs coloured screen, menus, etc etc - I'd much rather be able to use 'make'! There may be a limited use for schematic capture, but that seems to be rather against the point of a PAL designs as _software_. Even state machines can be adequately defined using text - and have been for years. Leave the pretty stuff for the PC users - just give the rest of us a compiler that provides a useful syntax and keeps up to date with the PAL technology. -adrian -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adrian Godwin | -------- < standard disclaimer > -------- agodwin@acorn.co.uk | -- This quote intentionally left blank --
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) (08/11/90)
It seems to me that when PAL's were first introduced, PALASM was given away for free (the BASIC source was right there in the PAL databook) and that this was key to the products getting used. Now two things have happened -- the PAL's and their descendants are much more complex, and a significant fraction of engineers want to use SUN's for engineering computing as opposed to PC's. IMHO if AMD supplied a free PALASM-90 product that runs on, say, at least a third of the OS releases from SUN, AMD would be a step ahead of the field of vendors that is trying to charge money for their software products. AMD is not a software house for chrissake. They make their money on chips. Supplying PALASM should be a freebie just like supplying a databook or application notes. As Phil pointed out its too much work to keep every program running on every combination of SUN hardware/OS, but hardly anybody has their entire network running the same OS release for exactly that reason. For a freebie, hitting a major subset is good enough. steve
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/12/90)
In article <836@hls0.hls.oz> geoff@hls0.highland.oz.au (Geoff Bull) writes: |OK, except third parties don't support AMDs newest chips Perhaps that tells you there is a lot of work in PAL software. |AMD used to give away source for PALASM; they don't do that |anymore so they obviously think there's something in it for them! Or they don't want to give away information to competitors who make PAL devices. |Also, they no longer publish the information you need to |create fuse maps or build a programmer (can't say I would |want to do the latter!) That information is available to the right vendors. It is not generally available unless you are willing to submit to a certification process. |Anyway the agents here charged us A$150 for it which presumably covers |the cost of the media and the manual. Yup. |Frankly, if they want to make $$$ out of it we're prepared to |pay $500 (say) for a Sun version (but only if the PC version |is also $500) I would guess $500 is too low for a Sun version, but why do you care what the PC version costs? Emotional, irrational jealousy? (I do not speak for AMD.) -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (08/12/90)
In article <1990Aug12.054222.26379@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >Or they don't want to give away information to competitors who >make PAL devices. Phil, could you elaborate a bit on the potential proprietary information that would be lost by publishing palasm sources? Is it that perhaps AMD knows more about logic minimization than the rest of us do? :-) Or does AMD have some strange technique for loading fuse maps? Or is there general fear that eg Cypress might just hack the palasm source such that it would generate maps for their parts? >Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Rick Spanbauer Ameristar