| ??? 07/03/03 16:41 Read: times |
#49991 - RE: Atmega pinout Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Sounds to me like you have some bad decision makers of the company you work for
I do not think so. They purchased a product off the shelf that did exactly what was needed, allowing my predecessor to concentrate on other things. Before color entered my world, timing was less critical by a factor of 500 or more and all could be done in C so maintaining two different processors was not that much of an issue. I am now in the process of changing the entire control system (note NOT 'design') from the ground up, partially to support more colors (every added color feature = more throughput needed) and partially to cut cost. Thus I have the desire to include this unit which perform admirable in single color in the standard processor group. I know that 'speed' is a matter of hardware and software, by my calculations I can, in the most extreme case (largest sign), just get by with a Cygnal 126. For the smaller signs, I am going to stick with my 668 simply for cost reasons. So, since the 668 can handle 80% or better of my production with no external chips, a processor family change is not an option, unless the price level for those 80% can be same or better. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Atmega pinout | 01/01/70 00:00 |



