RTX Code Banking

"Staffan, Staffan, once more: because it has the features of a microcontroller and thus is great as such and pitiful for other things."

So you're putting not only your favourite upper limits on what it should be used for (no floating point, code banking and RTOS) but now there is some lower limit as well? What is it, 90% CPU utilisation? 95%?

"The fact that you can hammer a nail in with a shoe does not make the shoe the right tool."

No, but there are a great many things to be cosidered. This analogy moves us a long way backwards in this discussion.

"There is a group of people that want to use "their" controller for whatever the task is (I have seen 386 equipped things that could have been done with a small PIC). How do you know that the OP is not one such?"

I don't, but you assume he is.

"The point is not that it is "wrong" the point is that when the OP will not qualify ("if i am satisfied with the 8051") the use of the '51 for a particular purpose,"

Why should the OP qualify his use of an 8051 to you? It would be pointless anyway - you would never accept his reasons.

"we must assume that (s)he is applying the '51 to something where it does not belong."

You see - there it is again. You assume that the OP must be wrong without any knowledge of his project.

"Thus to save the OP from spending an inordinate amount of time on something that most likely will fail Andy and I keep questioning the use of a '51."

That's most commendable.

"If this forum is to be helpful assumptions about whatever could be wrong for the OP must be refuted by the OP or left standing."

What assumptions have you made that he must refute?

"You and I do not know that the OPs use of a '51 will ever work so why do you balk at the posts that state so when the OP does not even have the gumption to state why he insist on using a '51."

I balk for the reason you have just given: I do not know his application in detail and therefore cannot say whether he is using a suitable processor and suitable tools. Neither can you, so it becomes somewhat irritating to listen to the same tired old record '8051==no RTOS, no floating point and no code banking for reasons that I just can't quite adequately explain in any other way than it is wrong, wrong, and wrong again irrespective of the circumstances'.

"Not having the time to spend 3 more clock cycles for every memory access is hardly "pushing it that close to the wire". By my method, I only have overhead when accessing outside the 64k, and when that is needed, I am in "keyboard mode""

I was attempting a little humour.

"Staffan, Staffan, once more: because it has the features of a microcontroller and thus is great as such and pitiful for other things."

So you're putting not only your favourite upper limits on what it should be used for (no floating point, code banking and RTOS) but now there is some lower limit as well? What is it, 90% CPU utilisation? 95%?

"The fact that you can hammer a nail in with a shoe does not make the shoe the right tool."

No, but there are a great many things to be cosidered. This analogy moves us a long way backwards in this discussion.

"There is a group of people that want to use "their" controller for whatever the task is (I have seen 386 equipped things that could have been done with a small PIC). How do you know that the OP is not one such?"

I don't, but you assume he is.

"The point is not that it is "wrong" the point is that when the OP will not qualify ("if i am satisfied with the 8051") the use of the '51 for a particular purpose,"

Why should the OP qualify his use of an 8051 to you? It would be pointless anyway - you would never accept his reasons.

"we must assume that (s)he is applying the '51 to something where it does not belong."

You see - there it is again. You assume that the OP must be wrong without any knowledge of his project.

"Thus to save the OP from spending an inordinate amount of time on something that most likely will fail Andy and I keep questioning the use of a '51."

That's most commendable.

"If this forum is to be helpful assumptions about whatever could be wrong for the OP must be refuted by the OP or left standing."

What assumptions have you made that he must refute?

"You and I do not know that the OPs use of a '51 will ever work so why do you balk at the posts that state so when the OP does not even have the gumption to state why he insist on using a '51."

I balk for the reason you have just given: I do not know his application in detail and therefore cannot say whether he is using a suitable processor and suitable tools. Neither can you, so it becomes somewhat irritating to listen to the same tired old record '8051==no RTOS, no floating point and no code banking for reasons that I just can't quite adequately explain in any other way than it is wrong, wrong, and wrong again irrespective of the circumstances'.

"Not having the time to spend 3 more clock cycles for every memory access is hardly "pushing it that close to the wire". By my method, I only have overhead when accessing outside the 64k, and when that is needed, I am in "keyboard mode""

I was attempting a little humour.

"If this forum is to be helpful assumptions about whatever could be wrong for the OP must be refuted by the OP or left standing."

What assumptions have you made that he must refute?
well, that is what this discussion now is about.

I was attempting a little humour.
sorry, missed that

Erik