Lpc2000

> I heard via the grape vine about a year ago that the reason why Phillips was
> pushing so hard to move over to the ARM7 was that they where going to drop
> the XA product line as soon as they had enough ARM7 derivatives out. Just
> what I heard. Considering that and that we use the XA in our current product
> line, we decided to move over to the ARM7 now instead of waiting.

Hi Charles et al,

I fully concur here. I vividly recall XA's RTP.
The first databook stated :
" we will produce 6 -7 derivatives / year ".

4 Years later there was still hardly a reason to call it a "family".
As of today there's still bugger-all else on XA.
When it came out I immediately bought the HItech-C XA compiler.
(Shame because XA was great, especially its ability to handle an OS
pretty much like 68K does with its register model)
Not to mention the burst access by shifting the lower 4 bits A0-A3 wrt ALE)

I was considring bying an Ashling emulator for it.
Thank Christ I didn't !!

And I also agree with the comments about SAM7S64 vs. LPC2K.
Cos' Atmel stuffed up in the past doesn't mean they will now too with SAM7,
but yes, it is a risk, and I think Philips LPC2K has shown they can deliver this time.

When LPC2K was released I had great initial scepticism, given the trackrecord
of XA, AND Philips Australia's sheer arrogance.

I've had times where I wanted to use SMT parts for designs with GUARANTEED
min. 100 K uptake UPFRONT - and they wouldn't even get me a couple of SMT
sample equivalents of BF199. (RF designs).

Anyway, ended up designing it in, and Philips got the biz.
( circa 1995).

-- Kris

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]