| ??? 08/10/09 18:23 Read: times |
#168298 - re: why? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
Andy Peters said:
Richard Erlacher said:
Andy Peters said: But where's the advantage in the "modern" OS? It lets you open several tasks, none of which have to be open concurrently ... That's serious bullshit, Richard. I usually have the Xilinx ISE tools, ModelSim, a bunch of emacs windows with source code and generally a handful of PDF data sheets and user guides all open concurrently. And sometimes I even open Altium 6 to see my schematic and PCB layout. See, if you do real FPGA work, this is not a luxury -- it's a requirement. (I've also got two monitors connected to the machine.) Well, those aren't necessary ... at least not concurrently ... You may find 'em convenient, but they aren't necessary. I'd be interested to know why you'd want to have source code open in a context where you're running ISE. I think much of that is just to impress yourself. I seriously think your masochistic approach to everything is just to impress YOU. RE said:
I have those tools too, but I don't need them all running at once ... Why do you? Ummm, let's see -- the synthesis tool may throw a warning or error, and when it does, I can open look at the line in the source to see the error. So a text editor needs to be open at the same time. I can code up something and run the synthesis tools to see whether it all fits. I can re-run my test bench to make sure that the code is logically correct before synthesizing, and if I want, I can run a post-route timing simulation. And this is all a lot faster than closing the text editor, starting the Xilinx tools and opening the project, which takes time. If the tools are already running, my productivity is improved, and my train of thought isn't derailed waiting for tools to open and close. Maybe you prefer to repeatedly open and close applications. Maybe you're still using 800x600 displays. I won't even ask how you keep your sources and data files sorted out across three machines. re said:
me said:
NO IT IS NOT. I remember the bad old days of running Xilinx XACT on a $3000 486 and literally letting the tools run OVERNIGHT to place and route a small FPGA. Now my $1000 PC takes about five minutes to synthesize and fit a Virtex4 design including the PowerPC core and a ton of logic. Gee ... you must have lots of money! Back when I was running a 'DX2 with 16MB of RAM, and a pretty large drive, I had only paid $420 or so for mine, in order to run the old XACT software with that stupid SILOS simulator. I didn't buy the computer but that's irrelelvant. What IS relevant is that a new machine that costs the same dollar amount (say, $1000 to $1000) does significantly more. re said:
me said:
Not only am I trying, I am doing. Same for my Macs at home. Oh yes ... Mac's ... that explains the high cost ... Watch that apostrophe, bub. And let's see -- my iMac at home with a Core2 Duo 2.4 GHz processor and 4 GB and a 250 GB hard disk and DVD+R burner and a high-quality display and gigabit ethernet and FW800 cost $1100. Price a similarly-equipped Dell. It won't be an all-in-one, so you must include the cost of an equivalent size and quality display. You will discover that it's about the same price. Sure, you could pay a lot less (crappy display, slower processor, less memory) but you are also getting less. RE said:
The old, admittedly MUCH simpler PLD software that AMD gave away for free would do the job 100% in just a minute or two, while today's $50k tools take much, MUCH longer.
me said:
What $50k tools are you talking about? Xilinx WebPack is free and does everything we want except for the EDK. Are you seriously comparing a 16R8 PAL design with a Virtex4 FPGA design? If so, your whole argument is hyperbole and baseless and rather silly. Mentor, Altium, OrCAD, and Cadence tools live here. THOSE ARE PCB TOOLS, NOT FPGA/PLD TOOLS. Keep your arguments straight here! RE said:
Mentor's tools aren't so cheap, nor are the others, yet the old DOS OrCAD is much more productive. Do a 22-layer VME-size PCB with OrCAD 386. And when you're done, tell me how much more productive you were. If you ever finish in your lifetime. RE said:
The fancy High-Cost tools do some PCB things a bit better, but I'm not sure the cost is warranted. I paid for that old DOS-OrCAD stuff, too, BTW, since I got it when it was newly on the market. Folks can get it for no cost nowadays. You're not sure because you DON'T do high-speed PCBs with multiple BGA packages and differential routing and multiple planes. If you do only simple, slow stuff you can probably get away with using EAGLE. If you do more complicated work you need tools that can handle the requirements. RE said:
Since the PC's I use are cheap, I don't mind dedicating one for this and one for that. After all, the three in my lab cost less than $1k altogether, despite their considerable storage and maxed-out RAM. That way I don't have the problems introduced by the "modern OS" and yet still run multiple tasks using multiple monitors when I have to. Funny, YOU seem to be the only person who seems to be having problems with the "modern OS." Perhaps it's because you're trying to use ancient software? re said:
That doesn't happen often, and, BTW, I don't use EMACS in several instances just to make my screen look busy. Who's LOOKING busy? I AM busy. Face it -- nobody else here seems to work the way you do. Which is fine. But stop telling us how much better you are than us because you are a masochist who prefers to live in the past. -a |
