This has been a really interesting thread to read, with all the opinions and all.
But what I'm curious about is which companies have you had good experiences with over the years, and which ones have left you feeling like you'll never be dumb enough to design one of their parts into a product ever again?
Thanks in advance.
Some companies (Motorola, now Freescale) and Atmel have a history of supplying large customers at the expense of smaller ones in times of shortage. Microchip has a business strategy of keeping lead times reasonable (stock to 4 weeks, IIRC). So far, they seem to be doing it. Their customer base is also not as dependent on volatile sectors such as automotive (Freescale) or cell phones (Atmel), AFAIUI.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
"Tim Wescott" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:KPCdnY4OvJCVNObYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@web-ster.com...
I never thought there is a un-answerable question. Here it is!
It depends simply on volume. If you are one of the big player you always have a source - as long as you want.
Personally I look on the support and openess of information policy. That is a good indication for later business relationship.
- Henry
--
"Tim Wescott" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:KPCdnYkOvJCIN-bYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@web-ster.com...
If the company is mostly focused on one of the big markets, like automotive or cell phones with short product lifecycles, there is a great change to run into problems sometime later.
For propietary products Fujitsu is a no-go for me. And all the other japanese/chinese too.
- Henry
--
If the client already uses the PIC, and you suggest another microcontroller. Guess who gets the shaft if there are any problems...hehehe!
They are all companies, that just like us have finite resources, some have different bias to sectors, there is *NO* magic solution (bar having the complete raw materials silicon, gasses, metals to final product under your own manufacturing control). The same as there is no magic technological bullet that solves problems.
What ever company you deal with, will have problems at some time, even if Microchip claim a 4week lead time at max, someone comes along and buys most the stock of a particular part you want, will add a 4 week delay if you hit that delay at the wrong time.
Some sectors like automotive, mean in a product lifecycle, you will still be able to get the parts in 5 - 10 years time. I know of at least one aviation sector project that has an obsolete part that they buy in as a wafer, to then get packaged themselves, as the aircraft is still in production!
If your volume is likely to be large talk early and often with your distributor and manufacturer as this helps in production planning. Who ever the manufacturer is.
My general rule is, when you are small volume try to ensure you have product in your hand before laying out circuit, noting lead time and ensuring you have parts in advance for at least the expected build rate to cover lead time and review your requirements OFTEN.
I would keep myself from Maxim. They make awesome ICs and they are really nice in providing the samples. However when it comes to the production quantities, you are stuck for the unknown time period.
VLV
Rule 1. make sure you have enough parts in stock before designing them in. Rule 2. make sure you keep it that way once you go into production.
OTOH, if Sanghe's policy is to build enough excess capacity ahead of the curve, they are more likely to get there. Their costs will be higher than if they aim to minimize capital expenses, but they may be able to gain market share among customers who value availability. Make sense? They can also *decide* not to take all the availability away from the smaller customers when a large customer comes along and wants an unexpectedly large quantity. ie. quote the big guy a bit longer lead time and not screw the smaller guys. It's a business decision, free will, not some free market crap. They can do whatever they like-- chips are not some fungible commodity.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
Those rules are not applicable unless your design is using only 7400s, LM358s, MAX232s and resistors of 10k. Even if it is so, there still may be the issues with ROHS compliance.
Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
We have been using a PIC16C54 in a design for about 13 years. We really should update to the 16F54 (it is slightly cheaper!), but we have not had any problems getting the original part. From Microchip.
Rocky
Yes, Maxim I already know about. I don't actually bear scars from their policies*, but I do suffer some hearing loss from the cries of anguish in neighboring cubes.
Choosing a processor which can run 'standard' C code will make life a lot easier in the long run (for example: when moving to a new CPU after a few years).
Picking something that is carried by 'next day delivery companies' (Digikey and Farnell to name a few) is usually safe. You can also look at the STR7 series from SGS-Thompson.
FedEx Truck Containing Maxim Parts Hijacked in Philippines
Hope Fedex had a lojack installed in the truck.
Try MAX038 !
- Henry
--
Unless the application is cost sensitive, nowadays I use an ARM7 variant for most things (e.g. LPC2000, AT91, ADUC7000, see .
If it is cost sensitive, perhaps one of the low-end AVRs.
All the above have good gcc support, and seem to be easily available from e.g. Digikey.
Heck, I recently had an AVR designed out in favor of an ARM7, initially because of the price advantage of the SAM7S64 vs. the ATmega128, but once we compared in detail the SAM7 also used less power at the same clock speed!
I am surprised that no one else recommended an ARM.
I don't know, but I suppose many of us have applications that very low sleep current, which ARM's don't have, or very fast wake up times, which ARM's don't have, or wide operating voltages (e.g., 1.8 to 5 volts for AVR's) which ARM's don't have, or require integrated LCD controllers to drive simple LCD glass, which ARM's don't have. PICs, AVR's,MSP430s, H8's ,8051s, or Elans all have the above features in a wide variety of flavors and tiny sizes.
The ARM is really a different class of embedded processor, higher power, higher throughput, higher speeds, less integrated, requires external regulators etc.
There is some overlap, with certain ARM's under certain conditions, if I remember correctly, the SAM was the only ARM that beat the AVR in active mode but that was only under certain strict conditions (no PLL), the other ARM's had vastly greater power consumption (ADUC7000's for example) making high active power another difference between ARM and the gang I mentioned above.
Thus, although ARM's are nice, they don't cover the same range of applications as the others, it's nice to have one processor that you can use when the power is provided by a coin cell or power mains.
I think you missed the point, its not the common parts you need to stock.
Some of what you say is true, but the apps where the wide voltage range of the AVR is useful is only a subset of embedded apps. It may be that
*all* of *your* apps fall in that category, but that still does not mean that that is a large market compared to the rest.When you talk about the SAM7 not beating the ARM other than under "strict conditions", you may not understand the SAM7. With the PLL on, it is still lower power than the ATmega128 at the same clock speed. The information I have from Atmel shows the current for the "clock divisor" with the PLL on at under 300 uA or about three times the current for the rest of the circuit running at just under 1 MHz. With the PLL off, the chip current can get below 40 uA at very low clock speeds. Meanwhile, the spread sheet shows the chip drawing 6 mA at
12.5 MHz with PIO, I2C and SPI all running.The sleep current of the AVR will be lower than the SAM7, but that will only be useful if your sleep ratio is higher than 99% of the time. Also what you say about the "wake up" time of the ARM is not universally valid. For most apps you never have to put the CPU into "sleep", you just slow down the clock with the divisor. It all depends on how deep you need to "sleep".
No, the ARMs of any flavor do not cover the same range as the low power
8 bit processors. But there is a lot of overlap and the ARM is clearly the better in those cases. Part of the selection needs to consider what your last design used (for reuse) and next design will require (again for reuse). For many of us, the ARM is the right answer based on the need to provide more processing power in a small package with low power. Some still need the wide Vin range and ultra low sleep current.The parts I think will really kick some 8 bit butt is the next generation of CM3 devices from LM. I don't have any hard data yet, but once they target the low power modes I think the CM3 has a lot of potential to do low power "right"! I just hope they don't give up 5 volt tolerance.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required