| ??? 09/12/07 00:13 Read: times |
#144398 - Definitions Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
Well, I wouldn't call a 75MHz 4-clocker with 16MB address space for both code and data, with a fat (and this is not acronym for "file allocation table") set of tools and utilities built-in in ROM, a microcontroller (although on the other hand, I doubt the term macrocontroller would gain significant popularity... :-) ) The OP might be confused by calling this an 8051. It relates to the 8051 similarly as the governor of California relates to me. I disagree. When someone says "Don't do multitasking on an 8051," that person obviously knows there's a wide range of 8051's to choose from. It's not the 8051 architecture that dictates whether or not multitasking is reasonable, it's potentially the speed and/or the amount of memory available. Not the architecture. In this case, I was responding to your assertion "A "full featured" RTOS/multitasking is slightly beyond the scope of '51. " I disagree with that statement. I'm not saying multitasking is always the best idea, but I don't think your blanket assertion was correct--even with the caveats. I don't think it's accurate to say that just because an application requires multitasking (or because it is determined that multitasking may make the development easier) that you should automatically consider a "more adult" micro. Are you going to use a 2k 16-pinner to do TCP/IP and multi-tasking? No, of course not. But I am no longer of the belief that one should necessarily run away from the very thought of doing multi-tasking on an 8051-based microcontroller. Just choose the right 8051 for the job. Regards, Craig Steiner |
