Mike Morris wrote:
> JUNK? Are 8-bit PICs used in high tech applications junk because they
> don't come close performance wise to the latest Intel or Motorola
> processors?
No, not in any sense. Can *you* get a 386 or 68k machine running *AND* get
its current consumption down to 2mA? I think not :-)

> Systems and subsystems
> are designed and engineered based around the capabilities of the
> individual components. These components have been evaluated as
> suitable for the given application. The fact these components may not
> be the current state of the art does reduce their effectiveness in
> their role. Nor can one conclude that simply replacing that component
> with something newer would necessarily improve or enhance the
> capabilities of the system it was a part of.
Hear hear. Speaking of old kit, I've got three HTEC "Kitty Card"
microprocessor modules. They are now over ten years old and STILL WORK
PERFECTLY. In fact, they're based on the only Intel CPU I know of that isn't
full of questionable features or glitches. The 8032. No onboard ROM, 256
*bytes* of onboard RAM, 16MHz maximum clock speed. 12 clock cycles per
machine cycle. Average performance at 12MHz is 1MIPS. Sure, it doesn't
compare to, say a Dallas DS89C420 (33MHz High Speed 8051) or a Ubicom SX28AC
(100MHz RISC... *drool*), but it gets the job done.

> The "Junk" you refer to
> has performed flawlessly as a system since the first shuttle flight
> in 1981. The shuttles have been flying since the early 80s. They are
> not new vehicles. They are however, still the most sophisticated
> vehicle ever produced by humans, and continues to be the world's one
> and only reusable launch vehicle. Most certainly "high tech" in the
> extreme... 15 years ago.. and 15 minutes ago.
What ever happened to the Russian "Buran" shuttle, anyway? I remember
reading about it in an article a while back...

> Time will tell what the cause of today's tragedy was, but the STS
> remains a time tested and proven system with an amazing safety and
> performance record considering the number of flights, and the
> incredibly hostile environment it must endure during on each and
> every mission. It seems particularly inappropriate to refer to any
> component used to accomplish such a feat as "junk".
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*.

My condolences to the families of the seven astronauts who died on that
shuttle.

Later.
--
Phil.
philpem@dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads