Searching \ for '[PIC]: PC104 recommendations' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'PC104 recommendations'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: PC104 recommendations'
2001\04\13@194917 by Brian Reed

flavicon
face
Hello,

I'm looking for some pointers towards a computer to use in an
embedded system... probably a PC104 or biscuit type board.
I'd like to find something U.S. built, or at least with a good U.S. rep.

In general the need is to receive a fast (57K/115K) RS-232
stream from a PICF877 (or similar), cache and manipulate it,
and then communicate the data to an (external) control PC via
ethernet programmed at the socket level.  Don't really need
floppy or IDE interfaces, but we do need some persistent memory
to save configuration info.

I expect the client will need a couple/few hundred a year, for
roughly 5 years (waiting on the details myself).

I know there's a ton of manufacturers and products, so help
picking a good 5 or 6 mfgs to review would be appreciated.
Also, pointers to suitable OSs would be helpful (I don't think
we need a hard-core RTOS).

- Bri

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\13@201440 by Brian Reed

flavicon
face
Sorry, I meant to post that this to the comp.arch.embedded
newsgroup.  Replies here will be read but please take it to
[OT] (or just find the same thread in the newsgroup).

Thanks,

- Bri


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\13@202446 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
For this application good old DOS would do fine.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)

{Original Message removed}

2001\04\13@204738 by Brian Reed

flavicon
face
I'd be pretty comfortable in DOS but have never done TCP/IP there.
Do you have a programming package or two to recommend?

- Bri


>For this application good old DOS would do fine.
>
>Bob Ammerman
>RAm Systems
>(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
>software)
>
>{Original Message removed}

2001\04\13@211212 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Some of the PC104 vendors include a TCP/IP with their package. That is
likely to be the most cost effective way to do this.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)

{Original Message removed}

2001\04\14@041851 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>software

Well, you might need DOS and a packet driver for your ethernet card, a
TCP/IP stack (trumpet ?), and a compiler that comes with libraries
suitable for socket level TCP/IP (streams, not UDP). Since there are
applications that run under DOS like this (ex: Lynx text mode www browser)
you should have no trouble locating the parts. The DOS license would be
the most interesting part imho. If you reach 4MB RAM needed to run and
1.5MB ROM or flash then consider embedded Linux seriously. The TCP/IP
stack will consume a lot of memory anyway so you might need it. I do not
know if a DOS machine can stand up to 115K, processing, and TCP/IP
continuously.

hope this helps,

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\14@090657 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
I have developed an application that runs on an STD-BUS based platform. It
boots under DOS, but then 'takes over the box' after booting. It provides
UDP/IP (written by me) over 10BaseT to a host and drives as many as 24
serial ports at up to 38,400 baud each. The whole thing runs in 640K real
mode. The .EXE file is about 50KB.

It seems kind of funny: we have people running UDP/IP on resource limited
PICs, and it seems the next level up people are talking about multimegabyte
platforms.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)

{Original Message removed}

2001\04\14@123224 by Edson Brusque

face
flavicon
face
Hello Peter et all,

> you should have no trouble locating the parts. The DOS license would be
> the most interesting part imho. If you reach 4MB RAM needed to run and

   the DOS license wouldn't be a problem since there's some freeware
versions. The most known seens to be the FreeDOS.

   Best regards,

   Brusque

-----------------------------------
Edson Brusque
Research and Development
C.I.Tronics Lighting Designers Ltda
(47) 323-2685  /  (47) 9993-6453
Blumenau  -  SC  -  Brazil
http://www.citronics.com.br
-----------------------------------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\14@135015 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
   I have developed an application that runs on an STD-BUS based
   platform. It boots under DOS, but then 'takes over the box' after
   booting. It provides UDP/IP (written by me) over 10BaseT to a host and
   drives as many as 24 serial ports at up to 38,400 baud each. The whole
   thing runs in 640K real mode. The .EXE file is about 50KB.

The "original" cisco terminal server code would "support" 64 lines at
up to 19200bps, with telnet/tcp/ip/rlogin/reverseTelnet/lots-o-stuff
in 1Mbyte of memory (code + data.  There was a whopping 256k of ROM as
well, but that was copied into ram before running it.)  It was more-or
less running on a 286AT PC (640k) at one point as well.


   It seems kind of funny: we have people running UDP/IP on resource
   limited PICs, and it seems the next level up people are talking about
   multimegabyte platforms.

As you move away from situations that "obviously" require hand-crafted
code, it becomes more and more tempting to move to an "off the shelf"
fully dynamic and featureful "sockets based" tcp/ip implementation
that you buy or download from somewhere else.  And those tend to get
big pretty rapidly.  (of course, the same thing can be said for hardware.
Once you go beyond microcontrollers with limitted on-chip memory, RAM is
pretty cheap.)

FWIW, Internet connectivity is the current "big thing" for embedded
operating systems (and "hardware".)  At ESC last week, everyone who was
anyone was touting their internet code, bundled with or without operating
system, in sizes ranging from about 12k (Interniche technologies) to a host
of linux and embedded linux offerings...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\14@191341 by Harold M Hallikainen

picon face
Have a look at ROM-DOS at Datalight (http://www.datalight.com/). It
includes a TCP/IP stack.

Harold


On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:49:18 -0400 Brian Reed <spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTspamREEDONLINE.COM>
writes:
{Quote hidden}

> >{Original Message removed}

2001\04\15@005453 by Brian Reed

flavicon
face
Thanks to everyone for the feedback.  I'm limiting my posts because we're
in a [PIC] thread by my accident.

>Bob A. wrote:
>I have developed an application [...] The whole thing runs in 640K real
>mode. The .EXE file is about 50KB.

What CPU and clock speed?

>It seems kind of funny: we have people running UDP/IP on resource limited
>PICs, and it seems the next level up people are talking about multimegabyte
>platforms.

Nods.  I should probably check into doing it with a PIC chip, but expect that
they will be ruled out due to resource limits and development effort.  What
I think we need is just one step above, and not multimegs.  The front-end
RF data receiver will likely be a PIC, so it's nothing against them.

What's the word on the street about TINI (by Dallas Semiconductors)?
A Dr Dobbs article from last year says it was in beta at the time.
It seems to be the kind of thing we're looking for.

Thanks again!

- Bri

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\04\15@095718 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reed" <piclistspamKILLspamREEDONLINE.COM>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: PC104 recommendations


Thanks to everyone for the feedback.  I'm limiting my posts because we're
in a [PIC] thread by my accident.

>Bob A. wrote:
>I have developed an application [...] The whole thing runs in 640K real
>mode. The .EXE file is about 50KB.

What CPU and clock speed?

Started on a 386SX @ 16 MHz

Current systems use a 486 @ 100 MHz

Could run with a new cpu card MediaGX @ 266 MHz

>It seems kind of funny: we have people running UDP/IP on resource limited
>PICs, and it seems the next level up people are talking about multimegabyte
>platforms.

Nods.  I should probably check into doing it with a PIC chip, but expect
that
they will be ruled out due to resource limits and development effort.  What
I think we need is just one step above, and not multimegs.  The front-end
RF data receiver will likely be a PIC, so it's nothing against them.

What's the word on the street about TINI (by Dallas Semiconductors)?
A Dr Dobbs article from last year says it was in beta at the time.
It seems to be the kind of thing we're looking for.

Thanks again!

- Bri

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\04\16@162216 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>> the DOS license wouldn't be a problem since there's some freeware
> versions. The most known seens to be the FreeDOS.

I gave FreeDOS a good try last summer. It works from floppy but I'll wait
some more until they have the HDD boot sector under control and some more
until standard DOS file IO support is debugged.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\16@162219 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> It seems kind of funny: we have people running UDP/IP on resource
> limited PICs, and it seems the next level up people are talking about
> multimegabyte platforms.

I think that most commercial TCP/IP stacks not written for embedded have
NO optimization vs memory size. The footprint of something like a trumpet
stack is scary. TCP/IP requires buffers (lots of them - at least 10 for a
connection with a queue 5 long, not counting out of order reassembly
buffers) and the implementors do nothing to free them unless they are
needed (assumption of 'owning the stack' ;-( ). Add to this NS resolution
and an ARP system to cope with 2-3 hosts and a little resident monitor and
serial buffers and the program code proper and you're past 1MB of RAM
unless you write it all in hand optimized assembly. TCP/IP was never
designed to be 'lean' afaik. UDP is another thing.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\16@164920 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
   TCP/IP requires buffers (lots of them - at least 10 for a connection
   with a queue 5 long, not counting out of order reassembly buffers)

Um, I don't see why that count doesn't include reassembly buffers, and
there's no particular reason that you need 5-element queues...


   TCP/IP was never designed to be 'lean' afaik.

TCP/IP essentially predates all "modern" microcomputers.  It was developed
during the time of PDP-11s and large mainframes (where a "large mainframe"
might have a whopping 16MB of memory and 1G of disk.)  CP/M was available,
but not widespead.  There ought to be no reason that you can't do a fine
implementation of TCP/IP on what is now considered a "small" microcomputer
(say, 4MB of memory.)  There are versions of linux that include a full
network stack, boot from a single floppy, and will run on 8MB systems
(including a significant ramdisk full of assorted utilities.)  Embedded
microcontrollers are another matter, since they tend to be ROM-strong
rather than RAM-strong.  I keep waiting for one of the RAM-strong DSPs to
become the worlds embedded TCP/IP system of choice.  (But the marketplace
is kept interesting by all the people doing the "best they can" on tiny
systems.  Which is pretty cool, actually.)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\17@140343 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> but not widespead.  There ought to be no reason that you can't do a
> fine implementation of TCP/IP on what is now considered a "small"
> microcomputer (say, 4MB of memory.)  There are versions of linux that
> include a full network stack, boot from a single floppy, and will run
> on 8MB systems (including a significant ramdisk full of assorted
> utilities.)  Embedded

I know, I put a root/boot/rescue floppy together years ago using a 1.2.13
kernel ;-).

(digressing)

What would it take to make a 12/16C PIC multi-taskable ? I think that just
a data bus to interface to standard RAM and a return stack stored in RAM
with an accessible (user modifyable) stack pointer.

Lacking that, adding an instruction or addressing mode that allows the
stack pointer to be manipulated as a file register. I don't think that it
would be very hard silicon-wise. Meanwhile I sometimes write scripts that
interleave separate assembly code (using roff-like markup embedded in
comments as markers) for different routines which need to run
concurrently. This has the advantage of deterministic timing, and all the
possible disadvantages ;-)

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...