Do you see any future to the 8-bit MCU's?

You're missing the point that a) an In-Reply-To header isn't even _defined_ for USENET, whereas b) References is explicitly _required_ in USENET follow-ups.

So no NUA is supposed to ever need anything else besides the References header to build a thread representation, and Google is in direct violation of the applicable RFC by not supplying it.

Google apparently doesn't know (or is wilfully ignoring) that News and Mail are two different things, ruled by different standards.

Only if posting agents choose not to apply the rules allowing to reduce the length to rather reasonable size.

By the time that makes anu difference, the harm has _already_ been done. By Google Groups.

I rather suspect their long-term master plan is to poison Newsgroups as a medium, to a point where people will flock to their silly imitation web page, where they get to sell advertising.

Back in the days an organization behaving like that would have faced the prospect of USENET Death Penalty. Nowadays it's probably unrealistic to hope for anything beyond individual participants just PLONKing

Sounds plausible to me, probably that's the plan. The old google groups which I use do a pretty decent job of threading ("like a tree" etc), but they are pushing the "new" google groups which are by far not as usenet friendly (I think; I only remember I looked at it and discarded it without hesitation, but I don't really remember the reason).

Dimiter

Possibly...

But why *use* google groups instead of a "real" news service?

(sorry, I don't use anything but google search -- and that, DECREASINGLY so...)

on:

).

Oh I still do use google groups - was the first kind of usenet access I ever had and in its old form there is not much I would complain about. The crippling line splits they make annoys me most and this is only cosmetic, after all. Not such a big part of my life, I suppose, is the summed up reason why I don't look elsewhere.

Dimiter

ostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently paying for 8-bit d= evices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to benchmark them with the MCU= independent part of my C++ code and surprisingly the results are quite sim= ilar.

of the 8-bit's? I guess it is.

Not yet. You've missed some other very important design details, like :

• Package
• Vcc Range

If you can tolerate a large Package, and restricted Vcc range, then

Some 32 bit uC are showing up, with better Vcc Range, but they are the fringe right now.

-jg

A few questions:

1. Are those real 8049s or are they ASICS that emulate the 8049 behavior at the external interface?

1. Does the 8049 handle USB and/or Bluetooth?

2. Did Apple Computers ever use 8049s?

I've done a lot of designs with the 16-bit TI MSP430 series. It seems to do well at jobs requiring both 16-bit math and low power operation. The line is still expanding, so I guess TI has some faith in future sales for the line.

Mark Borgerson

Nowadays, I think they are just interface emulation. I.e., there isn't even an 8049 *core* involved. E.g., I haven't

AFAIK, no. They are handled in other protocol stacks and "multiplexed"/switched into the OS just above that. I.e., as "virtual" keyboards (backed by *real* keyboards)

Again, AFAIK, no. I think 65816 was the biggest (pseudo-)8-bit device they used.

OTOH, I think the gummit uses 6502's to make large noises in war zones... :>

It all depends on *numbers*, not "philosophy". You get a single

I shake my head every time I come across my old GI catalog and wonder how this stuff ever came to *be* -- let alone how (relatively) "successful"!

Dunno, I've never seen the interface since I much prefer "real" clients over "web interfaces".

Understandable. If it works for you...

So, why do *your* posts (presumably coming through google groups?) appear to "work right" while other folks' don't?

I was going to pull apart one of my cordless keyboards just to see what they used inside. Then, realized I would, no doubt, end up with a lap full of little plastic keycaps, etc. :<

So, instead, I tore open a wireless "laser" mouse (Logitech M/N: M-RAG97). This is "powered" by an ST72F324LJ4T6 -- an

Granted, a keyboard has more "buttons" but I suspect the mouse and keyboard have similar numbers of I/O's (since the keys are undoubtedly organized in a matrix).

As for complexity of scanning that matrix vs. the handful of buttons on the mouse (7 in this case, plus the wheel and "laser"), I doubt there is anything that would require the power of a 32b processor for the keyboard while the mouse gets by with just an 8b controller.

(I suspect you could control most microwave ovens with a *4* bit MCU.)

J1939 isn't a heavy stack. And, for a "door controller", that device would only have to interact with the few controls

The "door controller" need not perform all the duties of an ECU -- it just has to be able to interpret *commands* to drive its actuators and report the status of the various controls (assuming those actions aren't handled locally)

Again, the user interface is canned. Your thermostat will never be called upon to display "O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"

As for "hardware compatibility", a volt-free contact closure (or two) suffices in most of the ~100M households in this country.

You don't need a 32b MCU to get a TCP/IP stack. And, many credit card terminals use dialup *or* talk (serially) to a smart(er) host that actually provides the transport protocol (e.g., a PC acting as a cash register)

I guess you and I approach problems with considerably different bits of iron! :>

Although I agree with most that 8 bit isn't dead a microwave oven is one case where a 32 bit cortex m3 might be an appropriate choice. A typical microwave implementation that I am familiar with uses 40-60K of 8 bit processor code for oven control and separate micro for display and keyboard.

Over the last few years the oven control code has reached the limits of 8 bit processors for a typical oven and requires considerably more processing power for a full featured microwave oven.

Regards,

walter..

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

I did a project once with them, involved arbitrary precision integer math. Had to write my own assembler in basic on a BBC micro. Gah!

Haha

I'm using Clear at the moment. Previously TW, previously ATT. None offer NNTP anymore (some time now).

So, it's just one more expense to have real NNTP, but I found out, after some effort, that low byte-count NNTP is real cheap. Just another account and password, like you don't have too many already.

--------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this a "typical microwave oven"? Or, just one that you are familiar with?

My *toaster* has all sorts of silly blinking lights. But, it really only needs a bimetallic strip to open the flow of power when the toast reaches a certain (approximate) temperature. (for the life of me, I can't understand why it needs to *beep* to signal the toast is ready... isn't the sound of it being ejected enough of a signal??)

I recall seeing a microwave oven with a web browser/email client built into the front door (seems like an ideal place for a display in a kitchen!). But, we must live in a poorer part of town as none of *our* neighbors have such a capability. :-/

A few minutes with google suggests worldwide production of microwave ovens is at least 50M/annum. How many of those, do you think, need/have that level of control sophistication?

I'll have to start making mental notes of the features present in the microwave ovens that I encounter (neighbors, businesses, etc.). A neighbor owns one of the larger appliance stores -- maybe I'll start with him...

There are some "free" NNTP services (with limitations).

Locally, smaller providers (typically those with UN*X services) will often give you access to an NNTP -- if not a complete *feed* (as well as shell access, etc.)

Yeah, something needs to be done about this:

"Never use the same password for different accounts" "Never write down your password" "Never use an easy to guess (remember!) password" "Never use less than 14 characters containing a mix of alpha, numeric, punctuation and differing cases."

OK, yet every financial institution, internet service, retailer, etc. wants me to set up a *separate* account with them... just how much of this am I supposed to commit to memory? :>

I am familiar with two companies microwave oven product lines. Both are large companies with a range of models and features. Both ship products world wide. My typical comment was a statistical mean of the products they ship. I am familiar with both their low end product and high end products. A the low end software has few user features but still requires oven control for reasonable product life and safety. The high end models implement indirect instrumentation to measure contents and data bases of cooking profiles.

Regards,

w..

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

While a global authentication scheme has its attractions (and its drawbacks), in the interim something like Password Safe can go a long way to making the multitude of accounts and passwords problem tractable:

There's also

Password Safe is similar. It locks the database (so you have to enter the database password again) and clears the clipboard after the configured interval, and usually clears the clipboard after you minimize the app too.

I've not used Keepass, but there are a lot of nice features in PWS, and I've used it for years. I don't think I could live without something like that - I've got nearly 300 entries in mine.