new comer

[timothy ma and constance lee]

Hey

I am new to ASIC design. Do you have any recommendation like web site,
books?

Thanks a lot

 

[Jim Thompson]

Hey

I am new to ASIC design. Do you have any recommendation like web site,
books?

Thanks a lot

Well, You could lurk around my website and dissect some of the designs
shown there ;-)

When you say "ASIC", do you mean analog or digital? If analog,
tinkering and building your own stereo helps. If digital, all you can
get is "book-larning" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Tim Wescott]

Well, You could lurk around my website and dissect some of the designs
shown there ;-)

When you say "ASIC", do you mean analog or digital? If analog,
tinkering and building your own stereo helps. If digital, all you can
get is "book-larning" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Oh, there's a lot of pitfalls you can fall into with digital design that
aren't in books. I suspect that Jim's real point is that if you can't
build regular circuits then trying to build applications specific
integrated ones isn't going to be a smashing success.

So if it's digital ASICs that float your boat, build a stereo with ports
that conform to Sony's IEEE-1394 multimedia spec...

 

[Jim Thompson]

Oh, there's a lot of pitfalls you can fall into with digital design that
aren't in books. I suspect that Jim's real point is that if you can't
build regular circuits then trying to build applications specific
integrated ones isn't going to be a smashing success.

So if it's digital ASICs that float your boat, build a stereo with ports
that conform to Sony's IEEE-1394 multimedia spec...

Now there's a real "spec" for you ;-)

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

 

[qrk]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

Hope not! Fortunately, 1394 is well entrenched in the video world.

 

[Tim Wescott]

Now there's a real "spec" for you ;-)

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.

 

[Jim Thompson]

[snip]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.

'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

 

[Tim Wescott]

[snip]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.

'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

3.2Gbps > 480kbps in my book -- how about yours?

Granted, 1394b was only up to 800kbps last time I looked, but that still
makes the difference for moderately high-def video.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.

'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

3.2Gbps > 480kbps in my book -- how about yours?

Granted, 1394b was only up to 800kbps last time I looked, but that still
makes the difference for moderately high-def video.

3.2Gbps is optical. And the 800kbps is a bit "iffy".

...Jim Thompson

 

[keith]

Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.


'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

3.2Gbps > 480kbps in my book -- how about yours?

Granted, 1394b was only up to 800kbps last time I looked, but that still
makes the difference for moderately high-def video.

3.2Gbps is optical. And the 800kbps is a bit "iffy".

As far as I'm concerned, USB has *always* been iffy. I've had to
re-install WinBlows many times to get USB back. I *hate* USB! ...though
I don't much care about 1394 either.

 

[Tim Wescott]

Jim Thompson wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:


[snip]


I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.


'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

3.2Gbps > 480kbps in my book -- how about yours?

Granted, 1394b was only up to 800kbps last time I looked, but that still
makes the difference for moderately high-def video.

3.2Gbps is optical. And the 800kbps is a bit "iffy".

As far as I'm concerned, USB has *always* been iffy. I've had to
re-install WinBlows many times to get USB back. I *hate* USB! ...though
I don't much care about 1394 either.

Windows? Who said anything about Windows?

1394 from one FPGA to another, managed by embedded processors running a
small kernel, works just fine and dandy.

 

[Al Borowski]

Now there's a real "spec" for you ;-)

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

Bah. Long live RS232!

cheers,

Al

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.


'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

3.2Gbps > 480kbps in my book -- how about yours?

Granted, 1394b was only up to 800kbps last time I looked, but that still
makes the difference for moderately high-def video.

3.2Gbps is optical. And the 800kbps is a bit "iffy".

As far as I'm concerned, USB has *always* been iffy. I've had to
re-install WinBlows many times to get USB back. I *hate* USB! ...though
I don't much care about 1394 either.

I've had just the opposite experience... USB *always* works.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

Bah. Long live RS232!

cheers,

Al

I'm all for that. My 1488/1489 designs are still selling strong after
40 years ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

I've had just the opposite experience... USB *always* works.

...Jim Thompson

Can't say as I've had much of a problem with 1394 either. It just
works. I have a little digicam that claims to have both interfaces
(and technically, it does), but for some reason known only to the
Japanese engineers the USB port only works with still pictures and the
1394 only with the digital video!

USB, at least in come cases, has installation issues if you do the
sequence wrong, but once working it seems very, very good, at least
with Win2K and later, and Linux.

I did have a problem with a USB keyboard getting itself deleted and
requiring a keyboard to get it set up again. Fortunately, the computer
had PS2 mouse/keyboard ports and I could stick an old PS2 keyboard on
there to get it back up. 8-(


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[qrk]

[snip]

I suspect USB2+ will win out.

...Jim Thompson

1394 is good for video, and always a generation ahead of USB in speed.
It's also peer-peer, so you don't need to have a great lunking PC taking
up space in your system unless you want to.

Here's the last thing I worked on before I left the corporate world.
Uses multiple 1394 links, which were chosen because USB just can't cut
it: http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne/Products/StarSAFIREHD.aspx.

'Cept that 1394 and USB2 are virtually identical data rates, and USB2
is decidedly cheaper

...Jim Thompson

Burst data rates are similar. You'll probably find CPU utilization
lower under firewire. Under sustained data transfers, 1394 is
supposedly faster than USB2. My Maxtor firewire drive does read
transfers around 32 MB/s (limited by the firewire chip set in the
drive). Does anyone have transfer rates for USB2.0 external drives?

Under Windoze 2k and XP, I haven't had problems with 1394 when dealing
with video transfers and external hard drives. In the DOS world, I've
had better success rate using 1394 than USB (this is a driver issue).
Of course, I haven't had any problems using USB on Windows 2k and XP
for cameras and memory fobs.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

I always ...
when I ...


I havent' ... While I ...
... does for (to?) me, I had ...
I liked...
I kinda ...

My problem was ...
I did everythign

I never understood ....

 

[Fred Bloggs]

As far as I'm concerned...
I've had to ...
I *hate* USB! ...though
I don't ...

 

[keith]

I always hold my breath when I plug in a USB device or print to the USB
printer. The chances of it failing are inversely proportional to the time
alloted for the task.

Thompson

Can't say as I've had much of a problem with 1394 either. It just works.
I have a little digicam that claims to have both interfaces (and
technically, it does), but for some reason known only to the Japanese
engineers the USB port only works with still pictures and the 1394 only
with the digital video!

I havent' used 1394 for video for six or seven years. While I never had
it completely fail, like USB does for (to?) me, I had a lot of problems
with dropped connections. Perhaps things have gotten better. I liked
1394 when it worked. I kinda even like USB 2.0, when it works.

USB, at least in come cases, has installation issues if you do the
sequence wrong, but once working it seems very, very good, at least with
Win2K and later, and Linux.

My problem was with Win2K on my home system. It just lost it one day. I
did everythign to try to get it back and ended up re-installing
everything. What a PITA.

I did have a problem with a USB keyboard getting itself deleted and
requiring a keyboard to get it set up again. Fortunately, the computer
had PS2 mouse/keyboard ports and I could stick an old PS2 keyboard on
there to get it back up. 8-(

I never understood the purpose of a USB keyboard or mouse (or printer, for
that matter).