Hi all,
I like John's point in that it addresses what i perceive to be one of
the fundamental principles behind the creation of this forum, namely:
alternatives.
Grant and Harry are pursuing a cool little project at the pace that
their busy adult lives allow. Like any real world project, their
design and methods represent compromises among conflicting
parameters, ie performance, durability, supportability and
compatibility with an existing body of application software.
But there are plenty of other ways to skin this cat and this forum is
the best one i've encountered for a discussion of those alternatives.
Some alternatives already exist like the PSIM, MIDIbox.org, and the
Buchla 300(!) this forum certainly has room for subtopic segmentation.
(IMHO software would be the best organizing principle for
segmentation. ie PSIM-compatible, BASICStamp, etc.)
Harry and Grant seem to be the farthest along on their endeavor but
that shouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing a different design. I
believe this forum exists to support their efforts with a free
exchange of information and provide them with a communication channel
to interested customers/subscribers.
i enjoy the good fortune to already have a CVS platform but if
anything , it makes me more sympathetic to the impatience of those who
are unable to obtain one. Nevertheless this allows me the luxury of
waiting until Grant and Harry feel very secure about the robustness of
their design.
But that's just me.
It's a marketplace of ideas here and this is a good place to make
proposals and see how much traction they get among the readers.
Specific to the BASICStamp: i've done some hobby robotics with it and
Parallax is certainly a better established supplier than BasicMicro,
and the BASICStamp is better supported. i agree that it is a safer
choice for long term support. I also believe that a processor can't be
∗too∗ fast , so BasicMicro has an edge there but on the other hand,
i'm not convinced that the BasicStamp couldn't do a very good job ,
perhaps in a smaller scale design than Grant did for the BasicAtom.
i support Grant's and Harry's project simply because it suits my
particular needs (and my NON-schedule) best but that shouldn't
discourage anyone from pursuing a different project.
Best,
-doc
--- In
ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "John Loffink"
<jloffink@...> wrote:
>
> BasicMicro is selling the 28M PRO part on their website and it is
supported
> in their software, both for the last six months or longer. Other than
> publishing a data sheet that shows four more analog inputs, what would
> constitute a clear indication of their intentions?
>
> It is obvious that BasicMicro is a small time operation. That hasn't
> changed since they brought out their product.
>
> If we want to play it safe, then a Parallax BASIC STAMP Product is the
> obvious way to go, with Parallax having created the BASIC
microcontroller
> market. That throws out any PSIM program compatibility though.
>
> The Parallax BASIC STAMP top performing products are advertised at
12-19,000
> BASIC instructions per second compared to the ATOMPRO 24/28 at 100,000
> instructions per second. Would we want to trade off apparent
performance
> for potential longevity of supply? That's a valid topic of
discussion. So
> is the need for PSIM compatibility.
>
> John Loffink
> The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
> http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
> The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
> http://www.wavemakers-synth.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Grant
Richter
> >
> > The problem is that I am not getting a warm fuzzy about Basic Micros
> > commitment to the
> > Pro module product line.
> >
> > If we go to all this trouble and they discontinue the 28M, where
are we?
> >
> > On the other side, the 50 or so sales of 28M modules that would
come from
> > this board,
> > might be enough to get some momentum behind the 28M product.
> >
> > The responsibility falls to the manufacturer to move the product
forward,
> > or give a clear
> > indication of their intentions.
> >
>