Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[OT] SEIKO TCP/IP'
2000\03\10@124049
by
WF
part 0 16 bytes
</x-html>
2000\03\11@050634
by
paulb
|
Miguel wrote:
> I'm doing some study with Seiko TCP/IP...
> Today i received 10 pieces and i want to say that they are incridible
> and mainly little...:)
> The problem is that they need a MODEM for Internet Connections...
Hey, cut it out! What more could you ask for a single chip? It's a
fact of life that you need an isolation and driver circuit to get you
connectivity, either via a telephone line or Ethernet (though they do
get these fairly small on PCMCIA cards).
If you use an external (cheap) modem, you should be able to hide the
chip in the interface connector.
If you are manufacturing the ultimate solution, then what you end up
(for phone line connection) with will by definition be sized as, *and
costed as*, a standard modem. IOW, a modem is the minimum requirement
for telecoms connectivity, TCP/IP capability is a relatively trivial
addition to a modem.
Bottom line: This hasn't actually changed a great deal with advent of
the "single-chip solution", which is why it isn't yet having, and won't
in a hurry, have *anywhere near* as much impact as hyped.
And of course, the Ethernet version is stymied by the simple fact that
most PCs sold for home consumption haven't even an Ethernet port as
standard, let alone that hubs might be commonplace.
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
2000\03\11@205354
by
Russell McMahon
|
Scenix are advertsing a TCPIP stack "for licensing" (details not at hand - I
can dig them up if this isn't common knowledge). One could just possibly add
a virtual modem part as well :-)
Russell McMahon
_____________________________
>From other worlds - http://www.easttimor.com
http://www.sudan.com
What can one man* do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at http://www.thehungersite.com/
(* - or woman, child or internet enabled intelligent entity :-))
From: Paul B. Webster VK2BZC <spam_OUTpaulbTakeThisOuT
midcoast.com.au>
Paul said
{Quote hidden}>Miguel wrote:
>> I'm doing some study with Seiko TCP/IP...
>> Today i received 10 pieces and i want to say that they are incridible
>> and mainly little...:)
>> The problem is that they need a MODEM for Internet Connections...
>
> Hey, cut it out! What more could you ask for a single chip? It's a
>fact of life that you need an isolation and driver circuit to get you
>connectivity, either via a telephone line or Ethernet (though they do
>get these fairly small on PCMCIA cards).
>
> If you use an external (cheap) modem, you should be able to hide the
>chip in the interface connector.
>
> If you are manufacturing the ultimate solution, then what you end up
>(for phone line connection) with will by definition be sized as, *and
>costed as*, a standard modem. IOW, a modem is the minimum requirement
>for telecoms connectivity, TCP/IP capability is a relatively trivial
>addition to a modem.
>
> Bottom line: This hasn't actually changed a great deal with advent of
>the "single-chip solution", which is why it isn't yet having, and won't
>in a hurry, have *anywhere near* as much impact as hyped.
>
> And of course, the Ethernet version is stymied by the simple fact that
>most PCs sold for home consumption haven't even an Ethernet port as
>standard, let alone that hubs might be commonplace.
>--
> Cheers,
> Paul B.
>
2000\03\12@065208
by
ranma
|
Hi guys,
I have also recently received my Seiko 7600 TCP/IP development kit and 10
pieces of the 7600A itself. I agree it is pretty interesting. I originally
thought of doing a web server etc in the PIC itself, but from what I have
seen of everybody's code, you can only do a very "Mickey Mouse"
implementation of TCP/IP in a PIC. People will have you believe that these
tiny web servers actually comply with the RFCs, which simply indicates that
they've never bothered to read them. I know you can do it in the Scenix chip
as it has considerably more resources available. I don't know what their
licensing fees are, but in our application it's out of the question. Nothing
can beat the Seiko chip with respect to speed, least amount of resources
used, ease of programming, short learning curve, and especially *ACTUAL
COMPLIANCE* with the various RFCs.
As I write more code for it I'll release it here so that others can use it
if they wish.
And yes, they are TINY!. Don't know how I'm going to solder them in the
prototypes.... Have to take them into work and do it at one of the SMT
rework stations...
Bear in mind that all of these Seiko chips bought before February have a bug
in them that causes them to drop certain packets. If you bought a
development kit then you would have got a defect notice. Seiko will replace
all chips free of charge with the new revisions, but you have to ask...
David
{Original Message removed}
'[OT] SEIKO TCP/IP'
2000\04\20@102039
by
WF
Hello,
I'm having doubts about SEIKO TCP/IP hardware...
This IC has a RI (RING DETECTOR)....where i connected it? (I Think that the
modem doesn't has a RING pin...)
Miguel
2000\04\20@110020
by
Andrew Kunz
RI is pin 9 on a D-9 connector. I never heard of a modem that doesn't have one.
Hmmm.
Andy
2000\04\20@110606
by
WF
Well, maybe my serial documentation is poor...let me see...ok, yo're
right...
Miguel
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Kunz <.....akunzKILLspam
@spam@TDIPOWER.COM>
To: <PICLIST
KILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] SEIKO TCP/IP
> RI is pin 9 on a D-9 connector. I never heard of a modem that doesn't
have one.
> Hmmm.
>
> Andy
2000\04\20@110808
by
WF
2000\04\20@112226
by
Arthur
This is A wakeup on call LAN wise
Art
----- Original Message -----
From: WF <wf
spam_OUTBLUSOFT.ORG.BR>
To: <@spam@PICLISTKILLspam
MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 3:16 PM
Subject: [OT] SEIKO TCP/IP
> Hello,
>
> I'm having doubts about SEIKO TCP/IP hardware...
>
> This IC has a RI (RING DETECTOR)....where i connected it? (I Think that
the
> modem doesn't has a RING pin...)
>
> Miguel
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000
, 2001 only
- Today
- New search...