| ??? 02/13/07 13:23 Read: times |
#132742 - technology marches on Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I think the '51 was 'state of the art' when it was introduced and second guessing with 20/20 hindsight what the developers did does neither serve a purpose nor make any sense.
Most of the 'complaints' about the oiginal deveopment have been overcome in some of the modern derivatives. If you want pipelining, you can have it; if you want ALE control, you can have it; if you want higher speed, you can have it; if you want .... If you 'analyze' a 1980 Chevy, you can apply 20/20 hindsight all you want; however, the base of that vintage still exist in the latest models. Erik PS it is kind of amazing that till ~5 years ago there was no real improvement (except the Dallas 4 clockers) on the original and then it just exploded to where, today, a 12 clocker is a rarity. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| port expander ... NOT 82C55! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have not, but how about a link | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Link... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not so fast with the TK68HC24 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nothing critically timed ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Generation of "e" clock | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| inserting a square peg in a round hole | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, it requires tools to make it fit ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The reason for 2 ALE cycles | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too bad they weren't smarter ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pipelining in the 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It\'s possible in some cases ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| technology marches on | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Those Dallas 4-clockers date back to ~1992 or so | 01/01/70 00:00 |