"It's not a practical or possible solution at this stage for several reasons which are confidential to Parallax and Ubicom."
This might have something to do with the lawsuit between Microchip, and Scenix (Ubicom), so many years ago. I believe that Microchip came out on top, and the results of the lawsuit were not made public. I would speculate that Microchip settled on: you can sell the SX chip as it is now, but you cannot improve on the design, or sell the design to somebody else.

As for a PropJr, or something else, does it sound practical to introduce a competitive chip to the SX, when you still have a lot of stock on the shelves? Parallax is not having a "fire sale" of the chip, they are being nice about it, and telling everyone that the chip production has stopped (ended).

[Quoting: "Ken said "]It's not a practical or possible solution at this stage

Rick,
I don't know.

Once you start the ball rolling in any direction it can be very difficult to turn a situation around. As momentum increases this little bowling ball starts to look and act like a killer tomato. Once we notify our customers of EOL they're going to redesign. As a result the future market for SX chips (or any other EOL'd device) becomes quite small. Some designs will have suitable, lower-cost replacements that are more appropriate.  
We've seen several chips taken into EOL that seem to have a long-term market, but it's mostly for hobby uses (like the SP0256-AL2). It isn't possible to sustain production of chips with a hobby-only market unless substantial income is derived from boards, development tools, etc.

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Will SX/B V2 advance from beta to a full release version?

I can only speak for myself, but I have been working quietly as the public beta helped wring out a few pesky annoyances and users asked for updates which Bean very generously accommodated.

What about the latest book Practical SX/B.  Is that still going to come out?

Ken - you seem to mention that you might not be able to reach all your customers that use SX.  Is it possible to mine your sales data and anyone who bought some quantity of SXs to get a a phone call or e-mail about the EOL?  I imagine this thought has been discussed at Parallax, just your words made it sound like there are difficulities in this.

Hey Tim - yes, we've extracted all of our sales data for 100+ unit orders and e-mailed the notice to each customer. The difficulty that I mentioned comes from distribution. Many SX chips are sold through our distributors in different corners of the world. We don't have direct contact with their customers, so we count on the distributor to reach each of these customers. We have quite a bit of communication ahead of us in the next month.

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Ah yes - distribution.  That makes sense.  Thank you Ken.

I too would like to know about the practical SX/B book, or at least more of it if it's availible.

There's a lot more done but it won't be released until I'm finished with it.  As I stated above, now the SX/B 2.00 is finally settled (I'm not complaining, it's a better product now that it's been in public beta).

I don't think that anyone started using Parallax just for the SX, but just got it because Parallax made all the learning utensils for it.

I started using Parallax because of the SX.  I started on the Basic stamp as a college course but couldn't justify the pricing of the chips.  I was going to go Microchip, but then I saw the SX as good solution.  I'm leaning on selling off my SX stuff and switching to Microchip and the Pic Basic.  Of course because as a hobbiest the amount I spend on chips isn't a huge chunk of Parallaxes sales.

I think its a sad day that this will be the EOL.  I really liked this chip because of its capibility's and the PRICE.  I had made a few commercial things (mostly coin Op items) and the chip being so cheap really helped.  I couldnt afford to use the BS2 and other chips, so this is going to be rough.  I liked how small this chip was as well, it could fit in very small boxes, not sure how the prop size is but I would imagine its much bigger.  I have to be honest (sadly) but I am going to have to look into the pic at this point.  Its especially hard because everyone in the forumns was pretty helpful and hopefully will still support questions, as I have LOTS OF THEM :).

Do look at the Propeller.  While it's not as cheap as the SX, the Propeller is only $8 in single lots and only needs a $1.50 EEPROM and <$1 crystal plus a resistor and a couple of bypass capacitors.

It would be somewhat silly to think you can get PIC questions answered in a Parallax forum -- there's plenty of other sources for that stuff.  As Mike suggests, the price of the Propeller has come down enough to make it viable in many applications.

For hobby duties, the price isn't a problem at all. The propeller is a bit more.....advanced. At least from my POV.

The Propeller can do a lot more advanced things, yes, but that doesn't mean it is difficult to use or get started with.  There are excellent labs and documentation and cheap tools to get started with the propeller.  The overall Propeller footprint can be quite small, except for the through-hole device.

There isn't a need to fear the Propeller, come on over to the forum portion dedicated to the Prop and you will find those who are super advanced with the Prop and you will find plenty of people that are exploring microcontrollers for the first time.

There are three parameters that the SX beats the Propeller.

Size
Cost
Start-up Time
And for alot of products these parameters are pretty high up on the requirement list.

Bean.

I'm not an expert by any means, but to clarify Bean's "Start-up Time", he means the time the chip takes from power on to the time it's up and running.

The 16-bit PICs and dsPICs are worth looking at - up to 40 MIPS, a very nice architecture and peripherals, and excellent support from Microchip. They are very cheap and available in 18-pin DIL.

Parallax currently has 13,400 sx28 (dip)chips in stock. Before the lifetime buy they are going to make. Sounds to me like we wont have to worry for, ohh I don't know, 5-10 years?

Shawn,
I tried to explain this in the EOL notice, but there are always more parts available than you see on our web site. At present we have about this many:

Chip                        Quantity on Hand (QOH)
SX48BD-G        134,987
SX28AC/SS-G        134,467
SX20AC/SS-G        41,280
SX28AC/DP-G        19,311
Total                        330,045
We will be adding to this quantity a very significant amount when we order more wafers in September.

Chips in Parallax live in different places: under test, in our China factory, or in one of our three warehouses in Rocklin. The web site only shows the quantity available in what we call "Warehouse A" - the place from which our sales staff most commonly fill orders. The other storage locations allow us to separate chips we have destined for our own manufacturing use.

How long these will last? Nobody knows!

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

One more thing to add to Bean's list:  Code protection.

As a manufacturer, I like to have as many barriers to competitors as I can get.

Chris I.

I am new and I would just like a quick summary of the different SX chips so I would know which ones to get involved with.

I would say the SX28 dip chip would be what to start with. The 48's have some timers that the 28 lacks, but in general the 28 will do 95% of what the 48's will (less I/O pins).

[Quoting: "StarMan"]One more thing to add to Bean's list:  Code protection.

As a manufacturer, I like to have as many barriers to competitors as I can get.

Chris I.

DEVICE          SX20, OSC4MHZ, TURBO, STACKX, OPTIONX, PROTECT

I think Chris was comparing the SX to the Prop.  The Prop doesn't have such protection device and Chris was saying he liked that SX does.

[Quoting: "Timothy D. Swieter"]I think Chris was comparing the SX to the Prop.  The Prop doesn't have such protection device and Chris was saying he liked that SX does.

Yes.  Tim is correct.  Thanks for clarifying.

Chris I.

The propellers code can be copyed right off the external EEPROM. That is the lack in code protection. mctrivia's PropMods previeouly had code protection, I don't know if they still do or not.

Good grief...  After being a BASIC Stamp fan since the mid '90s, I finally decided to upgrade to something more capable.  I placed my first order for SX stuff on 7/29/09.  Two days later, the EOL announcement.  Great timing, eh?

Ross--

If you like the SX and its environment, then I think you made a good move. The SX and its software will be available . . . for a long time. Unless you are a manufacturer, probably a lot longer than any device you may build.

I just bought some more of RobotWorkshop's SX48 modules (drop in replacements for the BS2p40, only a WHOLE LOT faster and with an interrupt structure) and will soon buy a few more USB SX-Key modules.

I am not worried that the SX will die before me.

Hello, Ken!

Will microcontrollers and modules like the BASIC Stamp 2P40 remain in production beyond the announcement of discontinuation of the SX line?  I always wanted to use BASIC Stamps because of their much broader capabilities compared with SX/B but these BASIC Stamps are pricey products that cost at least four times what you paid for an SX28 DIP chip!  Propellers run for triple the the price.  But listen to this:  I am interested in developing computers based on microcontollers including the Microchip PIC series and the Intel 87C51, among them, along with robotics and gaming.  Nobody will ever know why Ubicom is drawing in its horms on the SX, and I believe that there may NOT be a direct replacement.  In case me and other Parallax customers may have been wondering, did you know that the SX28 is an expanded, modified version of the Microchip PIC16C57?  The Propeller Chip might be inspired by or based on the Intel 87C51.  With far more memory available, RAM and ROM than an SX (32KB RAM for instance), it must be a likely reason for the sad discontinuation.  Happily, though, the Propeller chip is more affordable than a BASIC Stamp but it won't have the legacy and appeal of an SX.  In my opinion, the SX line will be sorely missed.

I have barely begun development of a hand-held remote-control/robotics/board-gaming computer that uses a pair of Wen Shing RF, 434-MHz transmitter and receiver modules and the SX28 DIP chip.  I started this project in 2008 almost at the beginning of the year.  You can look at a few pictures of the first device I completed under my topic SX28 Chip Based HandHeld, dated 6/16/2009, called the L6015.  I am writing a manual with instructions on how it can be used.  I haven't tested the RF communication modules yet but the general circuitry works perfectly.  The SX/B program has been written, edited and developed for well over a year now.  I already started developing a special programming language used with the hand-held device itself, which I call "PhantAsm."  This language is not for the PC - it is used directly in the device.  PhantAsm is a collection of BASIC statements "tokenized" into two-digit hexadecimal numbers from 00 to FF used as instructions.  It has seven basic arithmetic instructions, $28 and 29H, $2A and $2BH and $2D to $2F, which are two unary instructions (2's compliment and inversion,) add, subtract and the three Boolean instructions AND, OR and XOR, respectively.  There are 34 instructions for defining a value for registers X and Y I conceived, instructions $00 to $0FH for the least significant 4 bits of a byte and $10 to $1FH for the most significant 4 bits of a byte, which the two 4-bit values combine to make one byte to store into working registers X or Y.  X is the accumulator's addend, subtrahend, AND-end, OR-end and XOR-end.  The accumulator, which I call "ZR" (or just Z,) has the contents of X (or XR) added to it, subtracted from it and AND, OR and XOR operations.  Instructions $63 and $67H let you read what is in the word ZR, $63 returns the least significant 8 bits of the word ZR and $67 returns the most significant 8 bits.  The contents of the word ZR are stored into X.  Y is the compare register.  It is used to compare X with it.  With the Y (or YR) working register, PhantAsm can execute four decision-making instructions; $4C, $4D, $4E and $4FH.  These are to compare X with Y for the decision made if X = Y, X is not equal to Y, X < Y and X > Y, respectively.  Instruction hexadecimal numbers $70H and up cause the PhantAsm code to jump to one of the SX28's 64 RAM locations starting at address $70, skipping $80 to $8F and into $90 to $9F, skips $A0 to $AF, into $B0 to $BF, skips $C0 to $CF and into $D0 to $DF.  The left hexadecimal digit with values of 7, 9, B and D jump to the RAM locations in the SX28 starting at $70, $90, $B0 or $D0 and the right digit adds the value $0 to $F to the left-digit value.  I developed an instruction using the first digit of the hexadecimal nmber (remember, from left to right,) with values of $8, A, C and E for data manipulation.  I wrote a special code in SX/B so that values $80 to $8F, $A0 to $AF, $C0 to $CF and $E0 to $EF either load the contents of RAM addresses starting at $90 and to $FF into register XR or store the contents of XR into them.  And there is even a maniplation instruction to increasae or decrease what is stored into those RAM addresses.  Hexadecimal codes $80 to $EF are codes for the data RAM address pointer instruciton I call RWA for "Read or Write to Address."  Two instructions I invented for the PhantAsm language in hexadecimal codes are $48, SET L/S, which means "SET data RAM address access to Load/Store,' $49, which is SET D/I, meaning "SET to Decrease/Increase mode for data RAM addresses," along with hexadecimal codes $4A and $4B which are instructions DIR 0 and DIR 1, respectively, which change the flow of data or the decreae/increase in value of the RAM addresses designated for data manipulation.  There are also two more arithmetic instructions, $46 and $47 to shift the contents of the word ZR left or right, respectively.  There are three instructions to set the registers to 0, three decrement and three increment instructions.  The device also has its own speaker for sound feedback or Morse-code telegraph practice.  I invented one handy instruction for the PhantAsm language, hex code $6C, that outputs whatever is in the accumulator to the speaker, though only bit 0 is involved, plus an RF communications "sending' instruction and a "receive" instruction so that you can communitcate with the device(s) in a "run-time" program.

Serial displays may seem hard to use at first but once you get the hang of it, you will do just fine.  I hope you find this project interesting!  I am going to build an identical device to this first one I built (later) for 2-way communication and I am working on an electronics lab kit I built from the outer enclosure of an old jumpstarter battery station.  It has a breadboard, a numeric keypad, an 8-digit dot matrix HCMS-2972 display and several boards for the SX28 and peripherals.

But once supplies for the SX28 chip dry up, I am likely to move on to the Propeller and other microcontrollers.  Meantime, I am going to stock up on whatever stock available, just enough for experimenting before I redesign my idea from scratch using other microcontrollers including the Propeller.

Oh... and you know what?  I am enthused by the Propeller's built-in system to display to your TV's audio/video RCA jacks!  If I build a custom power supply to use the Propeller chip, I will probably use a 7805 (or similar) 5-VDC voltage regulator and a 3.3-volt zener diode and resistor combination.

Again, Ken, I hope you found my project interesting!

I hope to hear from you soon!

My Propeller boards just use a single 2.3V regulator.

My Propeller boards just use a single 3.3V regulator.

Hi,

I have just biuls a Fingerprint Scanner useing the SX28 chip, I am about to sign a very big order, will I still be aboly to get the SX chips in a year from now?

Glenn,
Did you read the messages from Ken Gracey?  Parallax now has on-hand about 1/3 of a million SX chips and will have many more with their final wafer order in September.  They will likely have more than enough supplies for several years.  Ken had mentioned in one message that they plan to maintain enough stock for 15-20 years of Stamp modules while they might keep only 2 years of supplies for the PING module since that's easily redesigned.

Now that I've had a little time to let the shock of the announcement sink in, my thoughts are turning to looking at future projects. I'll have to purchase new development boards, new software, new chips and new books.

Has Parallax thought about offering a "Stimulus Package" to get the SX group moved over to the new platform? Something that would include the Professional Development Board, ViewPort, PropPlug and anything else we need to start using the Propeller?

Dan,

The SX should be availabe for quite a while.  It's anybody's guess about how long this will be.  It could be 1 year, or it could be 10 years.  If you only use the SX for hobby projects you should be able to do a lifetime buy  without spending too much.  You can buy 25 chips for $100.  I think that quantity is more than I'll ever use.

Leon:

In case Parallax runs out of SX chips, from this moment onward, I have planned to purchase a universal Microchip PIC integrated circuit programmer and a Wellon VP-series universal programmer as well as a first look at the Propeller chip.  The pinouts of the Intel 87C51 and Propeller look similar but they are not the same.  In the case of the SX28AC DIP, which is what I am using for my haldheld hobby/gaming/robotics remote microcomputer, the 6015, I was looking for identical equivalent Microchip PICs with flash memory that work like the SX28AC, with internal oscillator and the same pin layout though slower than the SX.  The PIC 16C57 has the same pin layout as the SX28AC DP but it doesn't have an internal oscillator and its RAM size is smaller.  Hopefully Microchip can develop an alternative to the SX28AC DP with the same pin layout, internal oscillator, flash memory and the same RAM and ROM sizes as the SX - only difference would be that it will not be as fast.

Microchip already developed a 28-pin DIP and SOIC, SSOP and TQFP companions with a staggering 128KB of ROM, nearly 4K of RAM and evan an internal 1K EEPROM packed into one chip!  The PIC 18F2620 is one of them.  Want to build a benchtop or handheld computer with a motherboard comprised of one single PIC microcontroller?  Microchip brought out the PIC 18F8722 with 128K of ROM, approximate of 4K of RAM, 1K of EEPROM and a whopping 70 I/O pins!

The best replacement for the SX chips is one of the 16-bit PIC24 family - up to 40 MIPS and a much nicer architecture.

[Quoting: "Leon"]The best replacement for the SX chips is one of the 16-bit PIC24 family - up to 40 MIPS and a much nicer architecture. The smaller ones are available in DIL.
Leon

There is a free Microchip C compiler for the PIC24 and dsPIC30/33 and commercial Basic and Pascal compilers available.

It has a free C compiler, and assembler.

Does PIC24 have built in EEPROM and can change it's clock frequency during run time?

See the Microchip web site!

I think Parallax will buy the die for the SX chips before all this is over. I am in shock and very upset with this EOL notice. All my future plans and designs are SX based products. I don't want to use the PIC chips or Atmel or anything else. The support here I can't get any place else. I love SX/B and everything about the SX line. I want my kids to also get into the SX so they can also enjoy the SX chips the way I have. It's the SX chips and SX/B that got me into this hobby. I have plans to design the SX Chips into all my production systems. The help here make all my dreams possible. I truly hope that Ken buys out the SX line and improves the SX chip. Until then I am staying with all my ideas and plans to use the SX chips.  Thanks to all the members who have helped me reach my goals and for all your support Bean, Jon, and all the rest of the members.

Since the SX was at the core of the lawsuit between Microchip and Scenix I doubt that Parallax would like to face Microchip's sue happy legal department who has brought suits against Zilog and even Luminary Micro.

Well then I guess Parallax needs to make changes to the chip to avoid any problems with Micro. I love SX/B and the SX Chip. I am sure there is a way or a small change that Uni can make to avoid what ever problem they have. I also think that they may in fact close Uni make the changes needed and open a new venture with a different company. If the chip made them a lot of money which I bet they did then they should make the arrangments to continue with an updated chip.  Now more than ever I don't want to use the PIC chips and I can't see me adding an expensive Stamp with a PIC chip on it to my projects.  The best part of the SX was the speed, Flex, and a fair price and I won't forget who made it possible for me to develop my ideas. (all the support of the members here) I just can't see the SX die without a replacement for it...  We will have to wait and see but for now I am going full speed ahead with my SX/B projects.

Here is something I found it looks real old and I don't think the lawsuit it the reason for the EOL of the SX.

SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 26, 1999--
Scenix Semiconductor, Inc. today said that it believes a lawsuit filed in Munich, Germany, by Microchip Technology (Nasdaq:MCHP), has no merit.

The suit, which also names German distributor Scantec Mikroelektronik, claims that the Scenix SX Series 8-bit microcontrollers (MCUs) violate Microchip's copyright of its PIC16C5X(R) microcode. Scenix does not use microcode in its MCUs, and maintains that the claim is totally baseless.

A previous effort by Microchip to obtain a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement suit against Scenix in a U.S. court was recently denied. The judge hearing that case noted in part that, "Scenix has raised a substantial question as to whether the (Microchip) patent is anticipated by (a previous) patent and is, thus, invalid." He also found Scenix likely to prevail in its non-infringement position. Microchip previously dismissed several patent claims against Scenix.

"It appears that, having suffered setbacks in the domestic court, Microchip intends to try elsewhere," said Bulent Celebi, president and CEO of Scenix. "Microchip does not compete with us in our target markets, so we are surprised by its repeated attempts to use the court system to impede our progress."
According to Chuck Cheng, vice president of engineering and co-founder of Scenix, "We find this second lawsuit almost laughable because the SX Series MCUs have a RISC architecture that does not contain any microcode. Instead, we use hardwired logic to implement our instruction set. I don't understand how we can violate a copyright on something that we haven't ever used."
"Microcode" is software used to implement instructions recognized by a processor. A microcode program uses a series of "microinstructions" to control the processor's operation. Several microinstructions are usually required to fetch, decode and execute each "macroinstruction" in an instruction set. The alternative to microcode is "hardwiring," in which logic circuitry is used to control the processor directly from the instruction set. Because it is faster than the software-based microcode, hardwiring is more common in such modern RISC architectures as the SX Series.

"We designed the SX Series to take advantage of developments in processor technology that have occurred in the 20 years since Microchip introduced its first products," Celebi noted. "Part of that design decision was to use a pipelined RISC architecture that gives us up to 50 times more processing power than other 8-bit MCUs. This approach makes microcode irrelevant to the architecture and results in superior performance. This in turn allows us to pursue markets, such as video processing, telecommunications and Internet connectivity, that the previous generations of 8-bit MCUs do not have the performance to address.

"We also find the timing of the lawsuit service suspicious because, as with the suit Microchip filed in October 1997, it comes just before we anticipate the closing of an equity investment round. On the face of it, it appears that Microchip is attempting to intimidate our potential investors. However, as in the prior case, we fully expect that all of our investors will continue to support us."
Scenix Semiconductor
Scenix Semiconductor Inc. is headquartered in Santa Clara. Founded in 1996, the company announced the 50 MIPS SX Series family of 8-bit microcontrollers (MCUs) in August 1997. In October 1998, the company announced SX Series MCUs that set a new industry standard with 100 MIPS performance, followed in February 1999 by MCUs with expanded memory and I/O capabilities. In December 1998, Cahners Publishing placed the SX Series on its "10 Top Processor List of 1998."
Scenix is the industry leader in using Virtual Peripheral(tm) software modules, which reduce system costs and increase flexibility by eliminating the need to "hardwire" peripheral functions into chips or to use external components. The combination of Virtual Peripheral software functions with the industry's highest performance MCUs is an ideal solution for a wide range of embedded applications.

Additional information on Scenix and the SX Series products can be found on the Web at www.scenix.com.

Note to Editors: Virtual Peripheral is a trademark of Scenix Semiconductor Inc. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.

I don't think the Law suit is the Problem with the SX.. There has to be something else like the economy problems or something. What ever it is Ken don't let the SX die please........

Though I look the simplicity and power of the SXes, there are other chips that could be adapted to a BasicStamp format with 32bit processing, ADC on board, and so on.

Mostly I'll miss the educational value of demonstrating that with adequate speed many of the traditional hardware features can be fashioned in software. It is a wonderful chip for the learner.

If you look at Ubicom's website its rather clear they have moved away from microcontrollers altogether and now focusing on turning out high performance microprocessors for routers, bridges and gateways. Plus they have backing from serious venture capital partners to the tune of $77 million dollars as a added incentive to stay focused on networking microprocessors.

One problem I foresee with PIC chips is that they require a 10 pin JTAG connector to do the programming.
This takes up too much space on the board.
Why can they use a 4 pin header like the SX or Propeller?

The standard ICSP and debug connector is six pins (it's not JTAG), but only five are actually used. Microchip has a new adapter, it's tiny. I sometimes just use five pads on the edge of the PCB.

What is the name of the new adapter?

It's here:

http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1406&dDocName=en541939
There are actually two versions, one has to be held in place.

Please keep this thread on original topic only. It will be helpful to those who wander in late after the EOL announcement to sort through fewer posts related to the EOL and not discussions about other parts. I know there are more productive forums for the other processors.

Thanks,
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Hi Ken,
long time no speak, dont get much time for forums these days...

Thanks for clearing things up here.

I am extremely happy that you will be working towards keeping the bs2p series alive for 15 or more years to come, as our products are totally reliant on that.
We have so many versions / variations / pcb designs now that it would be an enormous and expensive task to migrate from bs2p to prop (even though thats what i would like, its just not practical to put in the effort, and we couldnt raise our prices because of it so no real business advantage at this stage).

Our few products that are sx28 based are smaller in program size / simpler anyway, and this is probably the push we have needed to move them over to the prop, and then once we familiarise ourselves with the prop a bit more,  migrating our bs2p stuff to prop probably wont look so hard.

Thanks for the heads up in this thread, and thanks for looking aftre the future of bs2p's.

Hey Chris,
Whatever you decide to do you will be able to count on supply. We've got over 15 years worth of SX chips in storage for our production needs, and we're preparing to order 4-500 wafers in September so we'll have plenty for our customers. And of course the Propeller is in no danger whatsoever, so there's not a supply concern in that regard.

If you need a Prop kit contact Ron and I'll send one over for you N/C.

Ken Gracey (Parallax)
Can Parallax refocus its SXB/editor crew to write a compiler/editor for the Propeller in BASIC ?

Hello Ken,
Since this is a major announcement in the SX forum shouldn't this thread be a sticky so it will continue to be and won't get lost in the forum?

Ken,
How many SX devices will you yield from 4-500 wafers?

Chris I.

Robert,
Yes, after a week or two I'll make this a sticky thread.

Chris I.,
850 gross die per wafer (gdpw) for SX48, and 1100 gdpw for SX20/28. This would be somewhere around 400K chips depending on the mix we choose to order. This is absolute peanuts from the standpoint of a major semiconductor supplier, but pretty big quantities in our company.

$WMc%,
Up to Bean and Jonny Mac -- they're our SX/B heros. If they show interest we'll certainly support them! We don't currently have resources inside to do this.

$WMc% see this thead http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=25&m=380174
Bean.

Bean (Hitt Consulting)
How do I load this in the Propeller compiler.?     " http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=25&m=380174 "
I can't  get it to print write, let alone Download it...

After that how do I use it.

I haven't used the Propeller software that much.

Object, Public,Private...???    
I deal with so many protocols that I can't  keep up with all of them.

$WMc%,
You don't (load it in the Propeller compiler).  It's a very early work-in-progress.  I'm sure Bean will post something with directions when there's something complete and reliable to post.

I think the SX chip is important and I'll tell you why.

I dropped my keys at work and when I noticed it, the inside of my car remote was missing.  The case was still attached to my keys but because the case was previously opened to change the battery, it was easy for the board inside it to come out.

What is inside is a board about half an inch by an inch.  It has a 3 volt coin battery holder, four tact switches on one side and a chip probably no bigger than the SX and it may be an SX.  There is one more chip or part that I can't identify.

The point is this, I was upset because I didn't want someone else to be walking around the parking lot at work looking for my car and when I found my remote, I was happy because it would cost probably $100 for a new remote but I'm paying for someone's knowledge.

What you learn is very useful and though you learn something that may be discontinued, the knowledge can be invaluable and these small parts can be very valuable in your next project.

The EOL announcement from Ubicom makes me physically ill. The SX has three features that nothing else can touch, and on which all my designs rely: 1) 75 MIPS speed, 2) ultrafast deterministic interrupts, and 3) small size.

If you need every clock cycle available, and the meanest and leanest SX assembly language code you can write provides just enough throughput, where do you go when the SX disappears? Going from an SX to a TMS320-family component would involve size, expense, power, and complexity burdens that, at the moment, seem insurmountable to me.

Is there ANY possibility that a reduced-cog Propeller can be sped up and provided with more cog memory?

The question was asked months ago whether customers would like more memory or more cogs. It seems that the consensus was more cogs. I'd like to place a vote for more speed, even if it meant fewer cogs.

What about the possibility of a small and fast 8-bit Propeller? Is there any hope for that?

Meanwhile, I'm going to cash in an insurance policy that was purchased (by my uncle) when I was born and buy SX chips. When they run out, I guess I'll retire.   :shakehead:

David,
You are not likely to see a reduced-cog Propeller.  It would involve pretty much a redesign of the chip itself even though a lot of the elements would be functionally the same.  You're talking about years and any attempt to do so would take away from Prop II development.

There is no way to increase the amount of cog memory beyond 512 longs.  Some people have suggested using some kind of paging scheme, but that wouldn't work practically even though it sounds like a fix.

The Prop II will have the same number of cogs plus more speed and more memory.

The Prop I has 20 MIPS in each of 8 independent processors and deterministic instruction execution (except for some hub memory access ... cogs can be synchronized to each other and to the hub).

David,
There's no need to get sick over this - I've already done it for all of you. I've worked with the SX supply situation for 13 years and I feel confident that I've investigated every option to continue the supply of that chip. The owner of the design has specific reasons for terminating wafer supply and we don't own the IP.  
Prop 2 - more memory, more pins, code protect, A/D and some other treats like Mike pointed out.

And we're sorry about the EOL announcement. We're placing a final order next week for a lot of chips. These could last a while.

Ken,
Has Parallax thought about offering a "Stimulus Package" to get the SX group moved over to the new platform? Something that would include the Professional Development Board, ViewPort, PropPlug and anything else we need to start using the Propeller?

Hey Dan,
Creative idea. Sure, we can do that! I don't think we'd name it the "SX Stimulus Package" however. Can you help me think of a better name? How about some of these ideas:

SX to Prop Conversion Package
Propeller Welcome Pack for SX Users
Eight Cogs is Better than One
PropPack Conversion Package for SXers
Propeller Welcome Pack for SX Users: This time we OWN the design!

Are your thoughts that we'd verify a prior SX purchase from Parallax, and based on that proof (from our own biz system, no proof of purchase required from the customer) allow a discounted purchase of special goodies?

Got an idea about the kind of hardware that would be most "welcoming" for an SXer? Maybe the PE Kit, Prop Starter Kit, or a combination of boards? If we're going to welcome the SXer we've got to roll out the red carpet - these customers have been with us for up to 13 years.

Let's do it. Need some input from the SX common folk! We can always splatter some marketing energy on this one, but we want to make the goo stick to the wall if we're gonna huck it!

I think they should have to "take the pledge", too; no looking back, no back-sliding.

Oi vey.... hasn't the government proved the "stimulus packages" are a waste of money that is better spent elsewhere?  What's next, a "cash-for-clunkers" program where you get credit against your perfectly serviceable SX chip and Parallax destroys the chip so it can't be used by anyone else?

Frankly, I won't convert to Propeller.  Why so? Both the SX and the Propeller are great chips on their own for the learner.

I still have a tube of 25 SX18s and 5 Propeller 40pin DIPs. But I haven't fully mastered either.  There are years of creative knowledge in the examples.

Recently I am restudying the SX28 RTOS as it really is a goodie and nothing like what is done in the Propeller hardward.
But on other days, I am delving into Hydra game programing, which is a souped up Propeller.

I do realize that the SX may just not have the market or the right legal environment to continue. It is sad how often laywers bully Americans into so many nonsensible choices.  But I am sure that Parallax will find another platform and venue to teach us more if the SXes are gone.  
As I said above - there are other chips that Parallax can press into production if it chooses to do so.  Some have CANbus build it and 8 ADC pins.  Much of Parallax's magic is in the IDE, the documents,  and support -- not the chip.  If you are not a Geek, Parallax will help you become a Geek.  Other sites just presume that their customers were born Geeks and understand it all.

You can offer to swap out the hardware, but in truth I am thinking I had better buy a second SXKey for safe keeping and maybe a couple of dozen SX28s in a DIP package.

Now if you were telling me the BOE Bot was going out of productions, I'd be shocked beyond belief.  That is the heartbeat of Parallax.

I'm waiting until Bean's PropBASIC is completed before I switch over to the Propeller. It will be nice to have an environment that is comfortable and not so foreign to me as in SX/B.

I'm working with Bean on that project and can tell you it's going to be a while.  You might as well get a Propeller now and start learning what you can, anything that you know will be valuable.  As SX/B doesn't relieve the programmer from understanding the underlying hardware, neither does PropBASIC.

Hi Gang;
I've been lurking around the Propeller forum for a while now, and spending time learning the assembly stuff.

@Loopy... thanks for the kudos on the SX RTOS. But guess what? I now have one almost ready to introduce for the Propeller.

Each (assembler) cog runs its own muti-tasking kernel, so multiple threads can operate "simultaneously" in each cog of the propeller, each independent of each other. On top of that, it should be a cinch for Bean to incorporate it into SX/B for the Propeller. This could finally eliminate that horrid "PAUSE" instruction I hated so much. Istead of Pause, the basic instruction simply releases itself to the kernel (scheduler), and the next task picks up where it left off. This will permit non-blocking communications as well as simultaneous TX and RX....... quite simple really.

I am guessing at this point that practically one might have up to 8 (in simple cases perhaps 16) tasks registered in one cog operating and timing independently. Could offer quite a light show if you multiplied that by six or seven cogs.....

Good things coming soon.

So, while I will still need to order a few thousand SXes for products I am now building, I expect any new stuff I do will be with the Prop, especially when the RTOS will be available.

At present my major complaint is the Prop's speed and the hokey "indirect addressing" scheme. That is a real lame approach, albeit the self  modifying code is great. The rest is pretty good, and some of it phenomonal. I think you'll love it once you embrace it.

This is very good news, indeed, pjv. The idea of having tasks operate as threads, in its own cog, should make propBASIC, a power house of a compiler. I have been having the problem of running short of cogs, this would solve the problem, nicely. If bean is successful in incorporating your RTOS into propBASIC, I will have to give propBASIC another look.

Keep up the good work!

Regardless... I'm still sad that the under appreciated SX doesn't have a bright future.

It's really one of the coolest & fastest  micro's you can get for a couple of bucks.

[Quoting: "Ken Gracey (Parallax)"]
Hey Dan,
Creative idea. Sure, we can do that! I don't think we'd name it the "SX Stimulus Package" however. Can you help me think of a better name? How about some of these ideas:

I am very happy with the SX and sad to hear about the EOL. I have developed a product around it as a small business startup and it's a scary thought that eventually I will need to find an alternative. The SX is affordable and fast with plenty of I/O for most of the things I'd want to do. Parallax has been great so far and the support for the SX is why I will seriously consider the Propeller as a replacement. I am pretty sure from reading up on the Propeller that it'd do everything I need also, but not without a heafty increase in price and board space over the current SX I'm using. The EOL announcment means I'll have to put additional development time into learning a new processor and integrating it into my product, plus the added cost of retooling up for redesigned components. It is not going to be an easy switch!

At any rate, I am hopeful something good will come out of this and I appreciate the forward manner in which Parallax announced the EOL. It will give me some time to make adjustments and hopefully find a suitable alternative.

Ken,
 I just noticed that ALL of the SX chips are out-of-stock.
 Is this the end....Or did you not receive that "last big shipment" yet ?

Bean.

Bean,
Out of stock temporarily. There are two "last big shipments" coming in. First, we have chips in the pipeline from long before we announce EOL. Those are arriving over the next few weeks. Once they are in stock you will see the inventory levels increase.

And the last big order (we will take delivery in Dec/Jan) is being placed today.

We're ordering as many SX wafers as we can afford to without using credit lines. This should result in some excess inventory for a while, but the future supply from Parallax is ultimately unknown. A single customer may attempt to buy everything we have in stock, or they could dribble out for a long time.

Thanks Ken for the update. I was afraid maybe I had waited too long to get some.
I'll keep checking back.

Bean.

Bean, do you need some right away? I have about a dozen and can send them to you as a loan if you need some now.

Dan,
 Thanks for the offer. I don't need any right now.
 I do have some, but I wanted to get more (like ALOT more) before they are unavailable.

Bean.

OK, just wanted to offer them up in case you needed them. I want to buy a bunch as well to hold me over until I can transition to another chip.

I haven't had a chance to answer Ken's post about the SX to Propeller stimulus name. Hmmm....thinking...

OK, just wanted to offer them up in case you needed them. I want to buy a bunch as well to hold me over until I can transition to another chip.

I haven't had a chance to answer Ken's post about the SX to Propeller stimulus name. Hmmm....thinking...

My thoughts and my opinion only and think what you will of me, In short it's time to just give into the PIC line up and be done with it. There is alot more information, support and projects that have been done.

Since no one has mentioned the 3 elephants in the room, I might as well do it. I would like an answer from Ken on this one.

1.  SX/B 2. Released as a finished product, released as is or dropped?

2.  Jons SX/B book. Finished/not finished, released as a book or a downloadable pdf?

3.  Simulator. Will Gunther finish his to do list or is it a dead fish.

[Quoting: "JonnyMac"]
Now that SX/B is in fact locked, I'm back to work (mixed in with other projects). The SX is going out of production, not going away. I see Delorian (cars) on the streets of Los Angeles all the time! ;)

...which is why Ken gave fair and ample warning for any of us (including EFX-TEK ) to order what we think we're going to need.   Like most, I wish that Parallax could gain control of the SX IP, "fix" it (flatten the memory, add more RAM, correct the power consumption issue, remove the PIC-compatibility mode) and have a SuperSX; but that's not going to happen.  Where we (EFX-TEK) can, we're migrating to the Propeller.  Where it doesn't make sense we're looking at other options.

You do what you need to do.  The SX, after this last manufacturing run, is gone.  When the on-hand stock is gone in a few years, there will be no more.  Parallax has no control of this situation.  There is no way for Parallax to acquire the right to make more nor even design their own version.  The issues are legal and are between Ubicom and Microchip.

Can anyone suggest another chip that is similar to the SX48 in GPIO, clock speed, and price? I'm starting to get worried here...

I don't think you're going to find another chip similar to the SX48 in all the factors you mentioned.  There are a lot of microcontrollers on the market with the number of I/O pins you want, but there are none really with the high end clock speed of the SX48.  On the other hand, some of the functions handled by the SX48 using interrupt handlers would be handled by dedicated I/O units so the clock speed might not be necessary for most applications.  Some of the Atmel AVR devices have the right number of I/O pins and a similar price, but run about 1/2 the speed of the SX48.

[Quoting: "Mike Green"]
I don't think you're going to find another chip similar to the SX48 in all the factors you mentioned. There are a lot of microcontrollers on the market with the number of I/O pins you want, but there are none really with the high end clock speed of the SX48. On the other hand, some of the functions handled by the SX48 using interrupt handlers would be handled by dedicated I/O units so the clock speed might not be necessary for most applications. Some of the Atmel AVR devices have the right number of I/O pins and a similar price, but run about 1/2 the speed of the SX48.

The Propeller is about twice the cost of an SX48. You'll need an external EEPROM which adds about $2.50 in moderate quantities. Unless your application is very very cost sensitive, that's about $6 total over an SX48. I think you'll find that the additional development costs associated with an AVR or PIC microcontroller over a Propeller may balance that for a lot of applications.

The newer 16-bit PIC24 and dsPIC chips deliver 40 MIPS, making them a lot faster than the SX devices for most applications.

I am actually using a dsPIC30F4013 now and you can't just compare MIPS.
Using a 20MHz resonator the sx can set/clear a pin in 1 instruction (= 1 cycle), the dsPIC
requires 3 instructions to make that happen. Running internally at 80MHz it thus takes 12 cycles
to set/clear a pin ( = less than 7 MIPS).
Running VP's on a dsPIC is also quite demanding and I must yet see to have
8 uarts running (that's why I used the sx for).

Apropos Peter's comments.  It's a long time since I looked at the 8051, but, as I remember, it's nowhere near as efficient as the SX in terms of what you can do with a single instruction.  100 Mips on an 8051 is still nowhere near what can be done with an SX at 75 Mips in terms of microcontroller applications.  It does depend on the specifics of the application and how it's implemented.

Use an XMOS chip if you want to toggle a pin really fast.

So why don't you see next generation SX chips, or 8051s or other 8/16 bit processors?

The answer is based on Moore's Law, the number of transistors in a given area doubles every 2 years.

Most small embedded SOCs are pad limited these days, which means for a given number of pads the die will not get any smaller.

Add to that the size of the CPU is becoming a smaller fraction of these chips, with peripherals and memory taking up most of the space.

Add to that the cost of a mask set around $1M these days for even a 4 year old process.

What this all implies is it's expensive to develop a new chip let alone a lot of varieties.  The not so secret, dirty little secret is many of the variations of these chips are actually the same die, its just feature disabled at the factory.

The difference in area between an 8 bit CPU and a 32 bit CPU gets to be a rounding error.  With chips like ARM, in thumb mode even the advantage of code space is eliminated (thumb code is a 16 bit instruction version of ARM).  And the big advantage of a 32 bit chip over the 8/16 is the need to page memory goes away, as paging is a huge hassle.  Most code is now written in standard languages, mostly C, so portability becomes simpler.

Hence it makes no sense to update an 8/16 part.

Ken,
I know this question is very premature........but has any thoughts gone into a possible replacement for the current SX chip in the current Parallax products?

I know there is not a direct replacement, I just want to get some of the ideas which may have passed across the table.

We understand that none of the possible ideas would be the final decision.

@James - I know I'm not Ken, but I've read the many discussions on this issue on these forums involving Ken, Chip, Beau, Paul, etc.  It's very clear that Parallax is using the Propeller as an SX replacement for many of their products and, given the fact that they own the IP, this will only continue.  There are some products where the programming is fixed, where there's no intention of consumer access to the microcontroller, the microcontroller is simply used as another component, and component size and cost is paramount where Parallax will use some other manufacturer's microcontroller.  External to Parallax it won't matter at all which one they use.  They could even use several different manufacturers' products.  It won't matter and it's no more our business than Parallax's choice of a resistor or voltage regulator to use.

[Quoting: "Mike Green"]@James - I know I'm not Ken, but I've read the many discussions on this issue on these forums involving Ken, Chip, Beau, Paul, etc.  It's very clear that Parallax is using the Propeller as an SX replacement for many of their products and, given the fact that they own the IP, this will only continue.  There are some products where the programming is fixed, where there's no intention of consumer access to the microcontroller, the microcontroller is simply used as another component, and component size and cost is paramount where Parallax will use some other manufacturer's microcontroller.  External to Parallax it won't matter at all which one they use.  They could even use several different manufacturers' products.  It won't matter and it's no more our business than Parallax's choice of a resistor or voltage regulator to use.

Hey James!

What Mike said.

In some of our products, the SX is simply another component and it can be replaced with something else which is newer, cheaper, and probably just as fast. We've scheduled out redesign of any SX-based product except for the BASIC Stamps (we're holding many years of SX chip inventory for them ~15-20 years for BASIC Stamp manufacturing). Something like the Ping))) could use another processor just as easily, so it will. Anything else you want to know, just ask.

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Is there any possibility of a one time sale on a small qty (25-100) of sx chips? Maybe a Daily Deal special?

RickB,
Too early to do that right now since there exists ample demand and an eventual short supply. The prices have been the same for a year, however, and we didn't raise them even though we are in this EOL situation. Many companies actually view EOL as an "opportunity" rather than the PITA we find it to be for our customers and our company. Done our best to keep this one reasonable for customers.

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

My replacement plans are as follows:

Near Term:  Keep using SX, I've got a bunch around and like SX/B, maybe buy some more protoboards
  - hoping the forum for SX doesn't die out anytime soon.

Most Projects:  Switch to Propeller, could use the PROPBasic by Bean but will probably keep trying to learn Spin
Really Simple Projects:   Considering PICAXE - like 8 & 18 pin DIP formats.,  oh, I still have a small supply of Basic Stamps too.

Now, this is a serious disappointment.
I just got started with these chips and I think they're incredible.
[ They speak BASIC.  :) ]
I guess I'll just have to order a good 'hand-full' of these ICs
so I can finish a couple of copies of my projects.

I know Ken well and what he's gone through to save the SX; the "bad guy" here is not Parallax. it's Ubicom.

Ugh, I just found out about this the hard way this afternoon when I went to buy a bunch of SX48s to make electronic jewelery for Christmas presents.

The small size, fast speed, high I/O count, wide range of operating voltages, and onboard non-volatile RAM really made the SX rock.

Parallax has been good to me over the years so I ordered up a bunch of Propellers rather than bail immediately to PIC.

Yes, I'm already learning all I can about the propeller. Jon's article's in Nuts and Volts are helping. I agree with you Electronegativity-- Parallax has been good to me as someone learning. I'll stick with them, they've earned it!

Wow.  This really just hit me today.  I think I subconsciously ignored the single line EOL thread summary when I was here a month or so ago.

This is really a shame.  The SX is a great little device.  It was my introduction into microcontrollers, and with the books, good documentation, tech support, and of course everyone here made the learning process fun, easy, and rewarding.

Like others here, I've got some decisions to make about how/if to migrate my current SX hobby project to another uC.  I've been playing around with Xilinx FPGA's, and add on 8-bit Picoblaze uC and 32-bitMicroblaze uP's soft cores.  I'm seriously thinking about going down that path.

The last time I mentioned this, probably because I'm too naive to understand the whole market, I was shush'd up quickly.  I would love a softcore SX!  While I'm no expert, given the size of the instruction set, limited built-in hardware peripherals, etc, creating a softcore for it wouldn't be an impossible task.  I know, I know, Ubicom won't release the IP and all that.  Just dreaming.

I will say that given my retro-computing interests, FPGAs are really neat for future-proofing stuff, and bringing stuff back to life.  Custom silicon made years ago by Atari, Commodore, etc can be reverse engineered (or at least functional equivalents produced), using Verilog or VHDL, and then can loaded into just about any FPGA.  So you can do the clone thing where you emulate/duplicate the original hardware (full on, including, say a 68030 processor) --- but you can also bring old hardware back to life, by interfacing the new FPGA with an old computer when replacement chips are no longer available.

Sorry to hear about this.

Keith, give the Propeller a Spin. I haven't picked up a BASIC Stamp or SX since I gave it a whirl. Lots of fun, nice to code in smaller pieces that fit in objects or cogs, and amazing power with the high-level drivers for video, mice, etc.

The support in the Propeller forum is 100x what you've seen for the SX. If you've been happy with the SX, you'll love the Prop. Never mind the suggestions to use PIC chips; stick with us for the highest success and satisfaction!

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Keith,
Do look at what's been done already with Z80 and 6502 emulation using the Propeller.  An FPGA will usually get you more speed, but is harder to work with unless you're starting with ready-to-go Verilog or VHDL.  Even then, a Prop can make a great peripheral controller.

Do I understand correctly that there are still more DIP package SXs in process? Or does the zero stock on the website refect the end for the SX?

Clint,
The web site quantities only show what we have in stock, not what we have in process (wafers being fabricated and chips being tested).

As for the SX28AC/DP-G, we have 99,890 units (+/- 1000) in process. They've already shipped from Taiwan and should be reflected as in-stock on our web site within a week or a bit longer. After these run out, we're out of stock of this particular chip. According to the current usage values of this particular chip, we should have inventory for 60 months, but that doesn't account for any panic attacks that cause certain customers to buy all of them.

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Thanks for information Ken, especially given the day of the week (Saturday). I will try not to panic, but it's hard not to. I was so happy when I found the SX and it worked well for my application.

Are there going to be more SX48?  They are currently out of stock.

yllawwally, yes sir! Many more are trickling in every day. See the picture below and look in the "Future Free" column. We're currently receiving 10-25K units per week, and shipping them out as they arrive. At some point we catch up with the backorders and "Future Free" becomes our lifetime supply. So, to get some just place an order (even if it is a backorder). We'll ship them to you but you may not even see a positive quantity on the web site. This is a very dynamic situation, but the short story is there are plenty of chips!

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

It depends on what your needs are.  The Propeller is one possible replacement.  With Bean's PropBasic as a Propeller equivalent for SX/B, this becomes even more attractive.  Other possibilities include some of the PICs and some of the AVRs.  As mentioned before, there's not really a general replacement for the SX.  That's what was so appealing about it.

Thanks Mike. At the risk of really showing my ignorance here, it seems that the SX includes EEPROM and a basic internal oscillator as internal features, whereas these must be added additionally with a PIC chip. Is this correct? I don't need the speed that the SX can provide, but I sure like the simplicity and "all in one" packaging.

No there is no EEPROM resident on an SX; only "flash" memory for holding program instructions and/or data that has been written with an external programmer such as the SX-Key. Program instructions and data can *not* be changed at runtime -- they may only be read/executed.

The internal 4mhz oscillator does not require any external components, but it is not that accurate, either, and will vary with temperature. But for many purposes where speed and tight timing are not issues, it's great.

The bare minimum need to run an SX -- using the internal RC oscillator -- is a 10k resistor between /MCLR (reset) and Vdd, and of course Vss and Vdd to the power pins.

[Quoting: "Mr Diesel Dude"]Thanks Mike. At the risk of really showing my ignorance here, it seems that the SX includes EEPROM and a basic internal oscillator as internal features, whereas these must be added additionally with a PIC chip. Is this correct? I don't need the speed that the SX can provide, but I sure like the simplicity and "all in one" packaging.

For myself, totally bummed about the SX EOL.  I had it in reserve fplanning for some future projects that the Picaxe could not handle.  Luckily, by the time I need it, the newer model Picaxes may be able to (some are able to run at up to 64mHz now).  It is tat or jump to the Propellor and a whole new learning curve.