Re: XMOS XC-1 kits are ****pping

steveu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:43 am, Leon <leon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, Leon <leon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>>>> The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>>>> I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
>>>> out. David May designed them both, of course.
>>>> Leon
>>>> leon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half
>>> thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\
>>> Steve
>> The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology
>> that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to
>> universities and research establishments, because there was nothing
>> else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their
>> own fab!
>>
>> Leon
> 
> The Transputer wasn't ahead of its time. It was brain dead. A chip
> only effective in substantial arrays selling for hundreds of pounds
> per device was a dead duck from the start. The only people who could
> seriously look at it for substantial arrays were military
> applications. However, when approached about military parts Transputer
> gave evasive answers.
> 
> There was nothing innovative about the design of the Transputer. The
> device as it was supposed to be (i.e. separate comms and execution
> planes), rather than the crippled one they ****pped, was similar to
> designs several people in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) were
> toying with at that time. The others did not proceed because the
> economics looked so wrong.


Toying means nothing in our industry, it's all about rolling out actual 
product. That is what Inmos did. But:

The economics didn't have to look wrong. They were wrong because IMHO a 
cardinal mistake had been made: Entering the market with very high price 
tags. That was bound to fail and cause me to turn away. Same thing 
happened with S/C filter chips.

Next, they should have lined up an early licensing deal with a major 
semiconductor manufacturer, one that engineers trust. This is extremely 
im****tant. Nobody in their right mind would design in a single-source 
part from a tiny manufacturer without a serious business track record. 
My guess is that a few more business-thinkers could have potentially 
saved the bacon at Inmos.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.