Operating Systems

We do not supply any operating system for 251, but to our knowledge CMX provides a operating system for Keil C251.

"in large programs RTOS is required"

No, that is not necessarily the case!

I searched the keil.com and found few articles for RTX251,

and i found one PDF manuals on net for RTX51 / 251 both,

our application required RTOS; we presently using code banking with our own written RTOS; but having some problem;

As seen RTX tiny in C51, feel RTX51 Full is more interesting;

the other option is switch to 251 with Standard RTOS like RTX51;

any way; better we transplant own RTOS to RTX51.

Which 251 device are you using?

still we are not using any 251 device; but i think rom less device will work out.

still we are not using any 251 device

Then don't. Intel just discontined them and who knows when Atmel will join.

If you want a 16 bitter use the far superior Philips XA.

In the latest poll OF 16 bit use the XA registerd 16%, the 251 ended up in 'other'.

Anyhow, were I to go beyond 16 bits today, I would go straight to the ARM.

Erik

If you want a 16 bitter use the far superior Philips XA.

Why take an 16-bit architecture with only one source? An ARM is clearly the better choice.

Why take an 16-bit architecture with only one source? An ARM is clearly the better choice.

Mr. Gates, I see that you already are preparing for retirement by participating here.

My bad, the last paragraph in my post above should have read:

Anyhow, were I to go beyond 8 bits today, I would go straight to the ARM.

If you read what I thought I wrote, communication would be easy :)

Erik

thanks for your information;

we will stick on 8051; and if required to upgrade >>> we directly jump to ARM.

Thanks for resolve my confusion.

To add some different opinion:

When 8-bit is at it's end, why not switch to a 16-bit Controller with good design concept? The C166/C167/XC16x offer very good solutions for most embedded requirements.

The big difference to ARM is that there even exist "small" devices such as the C161 or even the XC161 with a footprint not much larger than that of a 8-bit-Controller. Keil offers RTX166 and even ARTX166 as operating systems, and from Infineon comes a very mighty design sofware called "DAvE" for setting up the register values (the on-chip-periphery is very powerful)!

The decision between a more "controller-like" chip like the C16x and a more "CPU-like" chip like the ARM should not only be influenced by the available OS, but also by the systems requirement. I programmed a motor control & data acquisition system using a single XC167 device to control a brushless DC motor and acquire measurement values from 16 channels (U and I), allone from the pin count this would have been impossible with an ARM, second would be the space: My controller board fits on a single 100x160mm board.

Greetings, Axel Farr

Another Opinion.
If a design requires a lot of bit banging and can exist in on chip memory, we look to the 8051 family. A big family of possible chips. If we need additional memory range and bit banging, we look to the 166 or rather the XC16x family.
If we need some data processing, we look to the ARM devices. In all families, the chip costs are so close they seldom enter into the decision. The three chip families all have multi-source RTOS. Tool costs are a little higher for the ARM devices but good tools don't cost, they pay in time saved, etc.
Bradford

Hello,

Thanks for your comments; it help me lot;

We are working on telecom project >> PABX; thus we required more memory; code space;

the end products are very competitive in prices; with very less qty required. so prices also one of the major factor to decide;

any way thanks a lot for your kind suggestion; Now i feel that 16 bit are better than ARM or 32 bit.

for us it is comfortable to redesign the current hardware.