rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4034D754.C3D2264@yahoo.com>...> I can't say for sure exactly what kind of marketing would have helped > the RTX succeed. But I can tell you that any effort to pit it against > the x86 line was misdirected. The x86 parts were not really embedded > chips and I don't recall them being used as such very often. My memory > may be failing me at this since this was long before there were chips > aimed at the embedded market. But the Z80 and 8085 would have been the > main competition for an embedded processor. The x86 line used too much > board space and cost too much for most apps.I never used the 80186 but I have heard from people who did use it in embedded work and later the 386e for embedded was clearly aimed for and used for some embedded work. (though not be me.) Technically comparing RTX to 8085 or Z80 seemed compelling but didn't seem to account for much. (Rocket scientists excepted.)> It is likely that Harris did not understand what you do about the > significant factors in embedded, realtime work. It has been more than > once that a vendor needed to educate the engineering community about the > features that make their products are a better way to go.While you might be right, as we can only guess about such things, I think that since we know that at least Phillip Koopman was working there that they did have people with deep understanding of the significant factors in embedded, realtime work. What I see as a bigger issue is not if they understood such things but if their intended customers understood such things. I suspect that they didn't and that Harris was not able to educate them with their marketing effort. I think that is the real and bigger problem. It was not that they didn't understand, but that they were up against and overwhelmed by pervasive marketing information that was counter to their message. Perhaps if they had spent billions on marketing to even the playing field they would-could-should have sold more chips, but it would have been a big gamble and one that was unlikely to return sufficient profit to justify it. Instead they could just switch the fab line over to 80C286 and ride the marketing wave created by so many other companies as long as it lasted. I often hear that Harris just didn't understand what they should have done but have yet to hear a reasonable suggestion of what they would-could-should have done to successfully market the RTX instead of 286. I keep asking people and have yet to have a marketing expert give a good answer. Maybe there is one and I would like to know it if there is. Best Wishes
Dual-stack (Forth) processors
Started by ●February 16, 2004
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Jeff Fox wrote: ...> I never used the 80186 but I have heard from people who did use > it in embedded work and later the 386e for embedded was clearly > aimed for and used for some embedded work. (though not be me.) > Technically comparing RTX to 8085 or Z80 seemed compelling but > didn't seem to account for much. (Rocket scientists excepted.)... The 80186 was indeed designed for embedded work, including some on-chip peripherals. I forget what about it made it awkward to use compares to Z-80 and 6809, but I remember feeling that way. Probably my lack of familiarity bordering on ignorance. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Martin Euredjian wrote:> > To send private email: > 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net > where > "0_0_0_0_" = "martineu" > > "Jabari Zakiya" <jzakiya@mail.com> wrote in message > news:a6fa4973.0402191126.5e7326ba@posting.google.com... > > fox@ultratechnology.com (Jeff Fox) wrote in message > news:<4fbeeb5a.0402182345.3a2f3fa0@posting.google.com>... > > > jzakiya@mail.com (Jabari Zakiya) wrote in message > news:<a6fa4973.0402181055.27856c3@posting.google.com>... > > > > Corrections: > > > > > > > > The RTX 2000 had two 16-bit 256 element deep stacks (Return & Data), > > > > a 2-4 cycle interrupt response time, and a bit-mutiply instruction > which > > > > could perform a complete general purpose multiply in 16-cycles. It was > > > > rated a 8 MHz (but they could easily run at 10 MHz [which meant it > took > > > > a 20 MHz clock] at least at room temperatures). > > > > > > > > The RTX 2010 had all of the above, plus a one-cycle hardware 16-bit > > > > multiply, a one-cycle 16-bit multiply/accumulate, and a one-cycle > > > > 32-bit barrel shift. This was the version that Harris/Intersil based > > > > the radhard version upon, which NASA and APL (Applied Physics Lab in > > > > Columbia, MD) used for its space missions. They both still have a > stash > > > > left, the last that I heard. > > > > > > > > The RTX 2001 was a watered down version which was basically the 2000, > > > > but with only 64 element deep stacks. It was intended (according to > > > > Harris) to be a cheaper/faster alternative to the 2000, but like the > > > > Celeron vs the Pentium, if you can get the real thing at basically the > > > > same price, why use the neutered version? Plus, the reduction of > stacks > > > > from 256 elements to 64 element greatly reduced the ability to do > > > > multi-tasking and stack switching. > > > > > > > > I used the RTX 2000/2010 extensively when I worked at NASA GSFC > > > > Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD) from 1979-1994. > > > > > > I had two RTX boards. One was a rather expensive board six layer > > > board with a Meg of SRAM and a shared memory interface to a PC ISA > > > bus. It was from Silicon Composers. The other was one of the cheap > > > European Indelko Forthkits, with RTX-cmForth, that I got from Dr. > > > Ting. I had no experience with the 2010. I didn't remember that > > > the 2001 had smaller stacks than the 2000 but I seemed to recall that > > > the 2000 had a single cycle multiply and the 2001 had only the > > > multiply step instruction. I no longer have the boards or the > > > manuals and I don't think that Dr. Koopman's book goes into the > > > details of what made the various models of RTX-20xx different. > > > > > > It was a long time ago, so I might have been confused about bit > > > level details after all of these years. I spent a lot more years > > > working with P21, I21 and F21 and have a much better memory of > > > the bit level details there, it was also more recent. > > > > > > > I hope this helps set the history straight with regards to the > differences > > > > between the RTX versions. Too bad Harris didn't know how to market > them. > > > > > > > > Jabari Zakiya > > > > > > Harris seemed to try first marketing it as Forth chip, then failing > > > at that as a good realtime computer for use with C. I have often > > > heard that it was too bad that they didn't know how to market it > > > properly. Still I don't know if anyone really knows what they > > > should-could-would have done to market it more successfully. They > > > simply decided that they could easily market 80C286 that they > > > could make on the same fab line. It also helps date those chips, > > > Novix vs 8088, 8086 and RTX vs 80286. The realtime response, > > > fast interrupt handling (relatively) and deterministic timing > > > were where they won most easily, but they weren't 'backward > > > compatible' with PC software like the Intel compatible chips > > > so they were swimming upstream in their marketing efforts. > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > I know it was some time ago now, but only the RTX 2010 had the > > hardware > > one-cylce mutiply/accumulate, etc instructions. The RTX 2000/1 had the > > one-bit 16-cycle multiply/divide instructions. > > > > Someone recently posted (Jan or Feb 04) the urls to get the pdfs of > > the > > RTX 2000 manual and RTX 2010 Intersil users guide. I have both of > > them. > > If you can't find them on c.l.f. let me know and I'll email them to > > you. > > > > I also used the Silicon Composer boards, with the RTX 2000s. I used > > them primarily to test/compile code for our embedded systems, and to > > play around with for other projects. A good thing about the RTX > > 2000/10 > > were they were pin-for-pin compatible, and I could hand code the extra > > 2010 instructions with the SC development software. Piece of cake. > > > > The 2000/10 were way ahead of their times (as was the original Novix). > > Not only could you also do 32-to-16 bit squareroots, one-cycle > > streaming > > memory instructions, partition memory into USER segments which could > > be accessed faster than regular ram space, stack partitioning, 3 > > counter > > timers, fast external interrupt response, the clock could be > > completely > > turned off, and back on again without losing instructions, to run on > > as > > littel power as you could get away with. > > > > If only somebody like Motorola had taken hold of these chips. With > > their > > fabrication capabilities, and cpu marketing savy, they couldl have > > really > > done something with these desigsn. And think about just a 500 MHz RTX > > type > > chip know. Even then, the RTX performed at mulitple MIPs times its > > operating > > frequency (because of instructions compression - multiple Forth words > > being performed by one RTX instruction) > > > > But of course, I'm just engaging in ex post factor wishful thinking. > > > > Yours > > > > Jabari > > Imagine if you had to scroll down to here on every new message!!! > > Jabari, > > What's annoying about bottom posting? > > Bottom-posting-gone-wild with a full thread quoted in the top of the > message. Like yours. > > At least with top posting I can very quickly click through a bunch of > messages and read the new post. With bottom-posting-gone-wild you have to > scroll to the bottom of every darn message to find the new text. Not only a > waste of bandwidth but annoying as hell. See below for an example. > > With top posting, if you are reading through a thread, you can quickly > navigate up/down the thread and read it without further calisthenics. > > If you want to bottom post (which is appropriate when you need paragraphs to > be in context, or to address specific statements) at least take the time to > clip and snip the relevant parts of the message you are replying to. > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Martin Euredjian--- mixed top and bottom posting fixed --- Personally, I don't care one way or another how people post, I'm not interested in getting into the top/bottom posting wars. But mixed posting is even worse. I know you were trying to make a point, but it is of no value. People will do what they want to do no matter how many people them them to stop. Besides, it is only a single key stroke to go to the bottom of a page. Is that really a big problem? -- Rick "rickman" Collins rick.collins@XYarius.com Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY removed. Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com 4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Jerry Avins wrote:> > Jeff Fox wrote: > > ... > > > I never used the 80186 but I have heard from people who did use > > it in embedded work and later the 386e for embedded was clearly > > aimed for and used for some embedded work. (though not be me.) > > Technically comparing RTX to 8085 or Z80 seemed compelling but > > didn't seem to account for much. (Rocket scientists excepted.) > > ... > > The 80186 was indeed designed for embedded work, including some on-chip > peripherals. I forget what about it made it awkward to use compares to > Z-80 and 6809, but I remember feeling that way. Probably my lack of > familiarity bordering on ignorance.I don't think it was awkward compared to any of the 8 bitters. But it was not *PC* compatible because the IO map was different. I guess back then everyone either wanted a lower priced PC equivalent or they wanted more MIPs and the 186 did neither. -- Rick "rickman" Collins rick.collins@XYarius.com Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY removed. Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com 4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:4035159f$0$3078$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...> > When I reply to a top-posted message with a sig -- like yours -- > everything below the sig is gone, as here. The _)(*&^%$#@!! news program > snips it all silently. > > JerryWhat newsreader? Sounds like a bug, or at least something that should have a switch to defeat it.
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> writes:> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> Jeff Fox wrote: >> >> ... >> >> > I never used the 80186 but I have heard from people who did use >> > it in embedded work and later the 386e for embedded was clearly >> > aimed for and used for some embedded work. (though not be me.) >> > Technically comparing RTX to 8085 or Z80 seemed compelling but >> > didn't seem to account for much. (Rocket scientists excepted.) >> >> ... >> >> The 80186 was indeed designed for embedded work, including some on-chip >> peripherals. I forget what about it made it awkward to use compares to >> Z-80 and 6809, but I remember feeling that way. Probably my lack of >> familiarity bordering on ignorance. > > I don't think it was awkward compared to any of the 8 bitters.Are you guys kidding? It was that frickin' "segmented architecture" that was a pain in the ?##. I believe both the Z80 and 6809 were flat memory spaces, weren't they? Give me an 8085 any day of the 80's. --RY But it> was not *PC* compatible because the IO map was different. I guess back > then everyone either wanted a lower priced PC equivalent or they wanted > more MIPs and the 186 did neither. > > -- > > Rick "rickman" Collins > > rick.collins@XYarius.com > Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY > removed. > > Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company > Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com > 4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice > Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX-- % Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'" %%% 919-577-9882 % %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Randy Yates wrote:> rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> writes:...>>I don't think it [80186] was awkward compared to any of the 8 bitters. > > > Are you guys kidding? It was that frickin' "segmented architecture" that > was a pain in the ?##. I believe both the Z80 and 6809 were flat memory > spaces, weren't they? Give me an 8085 any day of the 80's. > > --RYSegmented architecture was a royal pain, but each segment was 64K, same as the 8 bitters. Segments were better than external hardware-supported banks. The galling part was that it didn't have to be that way. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:34:58 +0000, Randy Yates wrote:> rickman <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Jerry Avins wrote: >>> >>> Jeff Fox wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> > I never used the 80186 but I have heard from people who did use >>> > it in embedded work and later the 386e for embedded was clearly >>> > aimed for and used for some embedded work. (though not be me.) >>> > Technically comparing RTX to 8085 or Z80 seemed compelling but >>> > didn't seem to account for much. (Rocket scientists excepted.) >>> >>> ... >>> >>> The 80186 was indeed designed for embedded work, including some on-chip >>> peripherals. I forget what about it made it awkward to use compares to >>> Z-80 and 6809, but I remember feeling that way. Probably my lack of >>> familiarity bordering on ignorance. >> >> I don't think it was awkward compared to any of the 8 bitters. > > Are you guys kidding? It was that frickin' "segmented architecture" that > was a pain in the ?##. I believe both the Z80 and 6809 were flat memory > spaces, weren't they? Give me an 8085 any day of the 80's.Well if you were happy with 64k, then the segmentation wasn't a problem: you could be in "tiny" mode all the time (which is how the CP/M converters worked, I believe.) The x86 had some more instructions and better addressing modes than either the 8085 or Z80. Probably not necessarily nicer than the 6809 though (but I only read about the latter: never got to actually play with one.) Idle curiosity: why pick the 8085 over the Z80, in that time frame? Cheers, -- Andrew
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Jerry Avins wrote:> When I reply to a top-posted message with a sig -- like yours -- > everything below the sig is gone, as here. The _)(*&^%$#@!! news program > snips it all silently.Really? That's amazing. Why would they do that? Maybe you need to try a different reader. I'm using Outlook Express and directly off the Web when travelling with a browser. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin Euredjian To send private email: 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net where "0_0_0_0_" = "martineu"
Reply by ●February 19, 20042004-02-19
Jon Harris wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:4035159f$0$3078$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >>When I reply to a top-posted message with a sig -- like yours -- >>everything below the sig is gone, as here. The _)(*&^%$#@!! news program >>snips it all silently. >> >>Jerry > > > What newsreader? Sounds like a bug, or at least something that should have > a switch to defeat it.If there's a switch, I'd like to know it. Netscape 7.1 It has other bugs too. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
