We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
I look at the interget with Google and Bing but see nobody has av solution for the 80x51. and I know we need it. so I will write one and sell it. if you got experience and can help and want to be a part of this project say now.
walleed_zawami (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
Sorry, but I don't know what "interget" is. Maybe you could explain a bit better?
80x51?
There was a 80x86 where x could expand into larger and larger processors like 8086, 80186, 80286, 80386, i486, Pentium (586), Pentium II (686), ...
8086 and 80186 are 16-bit processors with max 1MB memory address space.
80286 is a 16-bit processor with max 16MB memory address space.
80386 is a 32-bit processor with max 4GB memory address space.
...
There is no such 80x51 progression, where the family continues to grow into hypercapable, 64-bit, GHz multicore monsters.
There are a huge number of 8051 processor variants. Some managing 12MHz crystal frequency but only 1 million instructions/second. Some managing 100MHz crystal frequency and almost 100 million instructins/second. But it is a huge family of small 8-bit microcontrollers. Some variants may have 128 byte RAM while some may have megabytes of RAM. But they are still tiny microcontrollers. They are a subset of microprocessors designed for looking at input stimuli and making decisions. "If button pressed, turn on fan for 30 minutes." "If level sensor above 80% decrease pump speed." "If receive buffer almost full, toggle hand-shake signal."
You may find them in toasters. Or in the air condition system in your car. Or in your tape recorder.
If your "interget" has something with microcontrollers to do, then I'm pretty sure that there are users or companies who have been using - or tried to use - 8051 processors for the task.
If you can't find anyone using 8051 processors for your magic "interget", then it's most probably because your "interget" is something that is not suited for the 8051 family of processors.
AV normally stands for Audio/Video. There are many processors way better suited for audio processing that the 8051 family, even if there exists specific 8051 variants with MP3 hardware integrated. Video is something even quite big processors can have trouble to handle.
The original "Multimedia PC" specification (MPC1) was from 1991 and required a 386SX processor (32-bit processor with 16-bit memory interface) with 256-color VGA card and 2MB RAM. It was known to stutter because of lack of capacity - even while running rings around a 8051 in video performance.
The MPC2 specification from 1993 stepped up the requirements to a 486SX (full 32-bit processor with 32-bit memory architecture but without a floating point processor) but was still known to stutter because of lack of capacity.
1996, the MPC3 specification threw in a 75MHz Pentium processor and finally remembered to put requirements on the graphics card - "capable of 352x240 pixel video at 30 fps". Finally, with a superscalar 32-bit processor with 64-bit memory interface and very specific requirements from the graphics card, did the PC reach a level where it could basically display video (of low quality) without stuttering.
That MPC3 sepcification is basically a supercomputer if compared to a 8051 processor. 75+ million 32-bit Pentium instructions per second (and with floating point hardware) is crunching quite a lot more numbers than a 8051 core unless limiting yourself to 8-bit numbers with a 100MHz single-clocking 8051 chip. But even a 100MHz single-clocking 8051 does not have the 64-bit memory interface...
So - why do you think a 8051 chip would be part of "the best AV solution"?
What about the 80251, then?!
"What about the 80251, then?!"
Yes, the 14 year old '251 is a bit of an odd duck. More than one company is making them, but they haven't managed to start a chain reaction of progressively bigger cores.
I'm not sure if it was too little, too late, or exactly what the problem was. It might be that many of the improvements in normal microprocessor architectures adds randomness to the timing calculations, which isn't too popular for microcontrollers. The ARM has gotten away with varying clock cycles depending on cache state but probably because it got introduced, and have been taking market shares, from a different direction. It is more a generic processor with microcontroller abilities.
Right now, the 8051 architecture is quite cornered. We will regularly get new variants with faster clock speed, more peripherials, more memory, cool auto-index options, ... but the core is very much cornered by other 16-bit architectures and by 32-bit ARM chips.
I think you could twist the old C slogan "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master" a bit. You can basically learn to write assembler for an 8051 in minutes. But it takes a lifetime to manage to get a C compiler to produce decent code for it. That may be a big reason why we didn't got a similar progression as the x86 line or maybe the progression in PIC, MIPS, PPC or ARM processor cores.
Yes, the 14 year old '251 is a bit of an odd duck. More than one company is making them
used to, Both Atmel and Intel has EOL'ed them.
Erik
You haven't heard? The internet is being renamed the 'interget' later this year to reflect it's most popular use. They were going to call it the 'interporn' but the buffer was only 8 characters. You can't blame Tim for that really, though, he was a DOS man.
Actually, the name that was discussed was "interpron" since it was thought that "interporn" might get caught in filtering office firewalls - and stopping so much traffic in the firewall might potentially overload it.
"interprn" could have fooled older users into believing it was a printing house like Playboy or similar.