RTX Tiny and Oregano Systems IP core

"Which IS included in the DK"

It's the stuff that isn't included in DK51 but is included in PK51 that is of interest. You listed this stuff:

"1) you get the ability to program the few derivatives with linear addressing of >64k - I know many serious '51 users that never use those.
2) you get the ISD51 but any "serious user" will have ICE(s) for that purpose.
3) you get the RTX51, but which "serious" user will destroy his throughput by using a RTOS?"

and asked:

"What am I missing?"

I pointed you to a table which shows what you are missing and you respond with:

"Which IS included in the DK"

Well, let's see if you can manage to take the time to go and have another look at that table to see what you are missing.

Incidentally, I am a 'serious user' of the 8051 yet I disagree with your comment in 2) above. I don't have or need a single ICE.

Your point 3) is a sweeping generalisation. 'Throughput' may be the primary concern in some projects but by no means all.

"Which IS included in the DK"

It's the stuff that isn't included in DK51 but is included in PK51 that is of interest. You listed this stuff:

"1) you get the ability to program the few derivatives with linear addressing of >64k - I know many serious '51 users that never use those.
2) you get the ISD51 but any "serious user" will have ICE(s) for that purpose.
3) you get the RTX51, but which "serious" user will destroy his throughput by using a RTOS?"

and asked:

"What am I missing?"

I pointed you to a table which shows what you are missing and you respond with:

"Which IS included in the DK"

Well, let's see if you can manage to take the time to go and have another look at that table to see what you are missing.

Incidentally, I am a 'serious user' of the 8051 yet I disagree with your comment in 2) above. I don't have or need a single ICE.

Your point 3) is a sweeping generalisation. 'Throughput' may be the primary concern in some projects but by no means all.

1) I argued against the statement "The PK51, which you will need when you are doing serious 8051 projects" which implied that if you did not utilize the features in the PK you were not "doing serious 8051 projects".

2) I see nothing in the table you linked to that I did not address in my post.

3) I have the PK, and do not know of using any that is not in the DK.

I am a 'serious user' of the 8051 yet I disagree with your comment in 2) above. I don't have or need a single ICE. You say you do not "need a single ICE", did you ever try one?. Nobody "need" an ICE, that is not the point, but the productivity improvement from using one is.

Erik

For "Oregano Systems IP core" there is no ICE available.

The core is highly configurable and we can customize the simulation engine to your actual configuartion using an AGSI DLL.

Did you already looked into the AGSI Speciation available at http://www.keil.com/appnotes/docs/apnt_154.asp?

Please contact support if you need any help with it.

"I see nothing in the table you linked to that I did not address in my post."

LX51, for instance?

LX51, for instance?

addressed under 1)

Erik

"LX51, for instance?"

"addressed under 1)"

LX51 is not included in PK51.

now you lose me.

you post as "things in PK not in DK I have not addressed" LX51.

Now, you, when I state that the ..X programs is covered in my initial post, say "LX51 is not included in PK51"

Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement.

Erik

"Now, you, when I state that the ..X programs is covered in my initial post, say "LX51 is not included in PK51""

Yes, I mistyped. I meant "LX51 is not included in DK51".

"Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."

Look, this is reaching an astonishing level of absurdity. You listed *some* of the stuff that is included on PK but not DK, then asked what you were missing. I pointed you towards the table that shows what you get in each package so that you could see what you get in PK. In spite of this you still seem determined that your partial listing was complete. Why can you not just follow the advice you constantly dish out to others, namely "read the documentation".

Regarding your assertion that PK is not required for serious programming, let me assure you that I *require* PK for my serious programming.

1)You listed *some* of the stuff that is included on PK but not DK, then asked what you were missing.
And I had a statement of "stuff needed for >64k limear address" which does include the LX51. Thus The LX51 was not missing.

2)Regarding your assertion that PK is not required for serious programming, let me assure you that I *require* PK for my serious programming.
If you "require" something that does not mean that it is "required" by everybody.

3)As I said: "Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."
Does in no way state "no serious programmer would want the PK"

I love the little bugger, but do feel that if you use a RTOS, code banking and who knows what with a '51, you have chosen the wrong chip.

Erik

"And I had a statement of "stuff needed for >64k limear address" which does include the LX51. Thus The LX51 was not missing."

So, you've dismissed a bunch of tools as "stuff needed for >64k linear address"? Did you know that LX51 has one or two other uses?

"If you "require" something that does not mean that it is "required" by everybody."

That's right. However, it also doesn't mean 'not required by anybody'.

"As I said: "Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."
Does in no way state "no serious programmer would want the PK""

That may not be your intent, but taken at face value it means 'PK is not required for serious programming' which is incorrect.

"I love the little bugger, but do feel that if you use a RTOS, code banking and who knows what with a '51, you have chosen the wrong chip."

I don't use any of those things however I do require PK. I would agree with your statement if you had said something like '*may* have chosen the wrong chip'. It is unreasonable to assert your *opinion* as fact. At least you have made it clear, in this case, that you are expressing an opinion.

One day you are going to have to realise that your personal set of rules are not necessarily always correct in all situations. Other people have different approaches to problems which suit them. This does not make them necessarily wrong.