Chip with simple program for Toy

[Eddie]

I checked the resistor that i have in series with the load and it is
510K. The color band is as follows. Green, Brown, Yellow and then gold
is the last color. What rating do you recommend for that resistor.
Thanks Ed

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Well?

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:N4e9f.39652$Bf7.38069@tornado.texas.rr.com...

"dAN" wrote
Hi,

I'm writing a library for an easy use of my 240x128 LCD display with
the T6963C controller.

I can display pixels and character where I want. No problems with
that.

I would like to develop with 8 bits display in graphic mode and 6*8
display in text area.

I don't think I fully understand what you mean. If you are asking if
it
is possible to have text and graphics on the screen simultaneously,
then
the answer is yes. I played with one of these a few years back so I
don't remember the details now, but I do believe that text and
graphics
together is possible as long as there is enough RAM.

Can I do that?

The only way to change the font is by modifying the state of the FS
Pin
by hardware. But when I modify the font, it also modify the graphic
area (for example, if I display 11001111 in the left upper corner it
will be shrinked to 001111)

After reading this a few more times, I think I understand now. You
are
saying that the FS pin affects the appearance of the graphics that are
displayed when you toggle it. I think I remember something like this
happening to me as well, but that was so long ago I don't recall for
sure. It should be documented in the datasheets, did you read them
thoroughly?

 

[Mxsmanic]

Jasen Betts writes:

It rhymes, which is neat, but what definition of "transpose" are you using,
none of the usual ones seem to fit the contect?

Swap.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Jasen Betts writes:

how so? in linux the GUI runs in user space, ditto the windowing subsystem,
it's only the video driver that has some priviledges,

GUIs by their very nature are complex and destabilizing elements in an
operating system. And they can never run entirely in user space; they
always must perform certain critical functions with special
privileges, and a bug in those functions will crash the entire system
(and unfortunately bugs are very common).

GUIs need privileges because that's the only way to make them
performant. Even with today's processors, most of the CPU time used
by PCs is spent in the GUI. Try to make it all run in user space and
99% of the CPU time goes to the GUI, slowing the system to a crawl.
Often hardware assistance is required, and in that case you need more
privileged code.

how so?

UNIX has an extremely simple security model. For example, there is
only root, which can do anything, and normal users, which can do
nothing. Access control lists are very simple (owner, group,
universe) and no mandatory access control is possible. There are many
other problems with UNIX. Multics was much better, but it was slow,
and UNIX helped performance by including virtually none of the tight
security features of Multics.

Windows NT, on the other hand, has very extensive security features,
only a fraction of which are currently exposed to the user.

I heard that Microsoft moved the webservers from NT to unix
(I think solaris or BSD) for security reasons a few years ago. Hmm,
they seem to be running IIS again now.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but Microsoft has been running
Windows with IIS on its Web servers for just about as long as IIS has
been around. And even if they ever had run UNIX, it surely would not
be for security reasons, since NT is much more secure.

That's why linux admins like the hardware that has open source drivers.

That doesn't help normal users.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[clifto]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2005-10-30, Bob Masta <NoSpam@daqarta.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:53:25 GMT, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

All DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1 preemptively.

I hadn't heard of this before. Can you explain how it worked?
I had the impression that the DOS application took over and
Windows apps didn't get any time at all. If there were time
slices for Windows apps, do you recall how they did this?

you needed a '386 (or better) and atleast 2megs of ram.

then you could run windows in "386 enhanced" mode and when you did that
you could multitask dos apps like FS4 and Telix if you selected the right
options in the Pif files.

That wasn't preemptive, that was time-sliced.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

[Mxsmanic]

clifto writes:

I don't know what BP gas pumps run, but what I saw a little while back
was unmistakably a BSOD.

NT-based systems can get BSODs, too, but it's much less frequent
(usually a bad driver or hardware failure).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[BillW50]

"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message news:1apk33-o98.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:38:25 -0600

David Maynard wrote:
Microsoft had the vision of running the same software on anyone's 'PC
clone' and while it may seem obvious today it was anything but obvious in
1980 as the 'home computer' world was a hodge podge of individual hardware
types each running their own O.S. (of a sorts) just like the mainframe
world was. Commodore stuff didn't run on an Apple and Apple stuff didn't
run on an Atari, and Atari stuff didn't run on a CPM machine (CPM being the
closest to a 'multiple hardware supplier' O.S.).

You're attributing to Microsoft what rightfully belongs to Digital Research
and CP/M.

[BUZZER SOUND] Nope, not at all! Gary Kildall kept promising SCP and
others that he would write CP/M-86. And we waited and waited for
over a year I think. And Gary kept promising that he would get to
it. So SCP finally got fed up with Gary's BS and had Tim wrote Quick
& Dirty DOS so SCP could test the hardware.

Kildall had the vision of running the same software on anyone's
PC, with a uniform set of utility programs and system calls. Paterson
copied it and Gates bought the copy.

In Gary's dreams! Gary only cared and then got hot & heavy after MS
got the contract for PC-DOS. But even still, Gary was late and
wanted something like $240 per computer. But IBM only paid MS like 5
cents per computer. You don't have to have any brains to figure out
why CP/M-86 didn't make it.


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

 

[BillW50]

"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message news:94qk33-o98.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:52:25 -0600

BillW50 wrote:
And there has been awhile now, Sun's OpenOffice which can be had for
free! Claims to open MS Office files and all. If it were any good,
it would wipe out MS Office off of the map for sure. But the truth
is, it ain't as good. Thus it still isn't a threat to MS.

Maybe it's just me, but the only thing I can find wrong with it
is that it has trouble writing some Microsoft output formats.

No it isn't you. I have heard this many times now.

OpenOffice can do something that most versions of Office can't
do, that is to open Word 6 documents.

I never found this to be the case. Although the filter isn't
installed by default. But you can add it in Office's setup.


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

 

[John Doe]

clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

ATMs don't run Windows 95. They started switching from OS/2 to
Windows NT Workstation ages ago, and I don't know what they are
running most often today, but it's not Windows 95.

I don't know what BP gas pumps run, but what I saw a little while
back was unmistakably a BSOD.

There were some state government offices here which were unable to
use Windows. Recently, Wal-Mart has been showing its lack of
proficiency with automated checkout lanes that use Windows and don't
work.

 

[David Maynard]

clifto wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Microsoft had the vision of running the same software on anyone's 'PC
clone' and while it may seem obvious today it was anything but obvious in
1980 as the 'home computer' world was a hodge podge of individual hardware
types each running their own O.S. (of a sorts) just like the mainframe
world was. Commodore stuff didn't run on an Apple and Apple stuff didn't
run on an Atari, and Atari stuff didn't run on a CPM machine (CPM being the
closest to a 'multiple hardware supplier' O.S.).


You're attributing to Microsoft

I'm attributing it to Microsoft because that was the notion they had and
was the reason they were willing to sell DOS to IBM for a pittance over
what they themselves paid for it, plus having to make it work.

what rightfully belongs to Digital Research
and CP/M. Kildall had the vision of running the same software on anyone's
PC, with a uniform set of utility programs and system calls.

Has it ever occurred to you that more than one person can have the same idea?

The same idea was also the biggest driving force behind developing UNIX, or
does that 'rightfully belong' to DR too? You're going to have a hard time
making that case as UNIX predates DR by a decade, or more.

They all had different ideas on how to accomplish it. With UNIX the notion
was to make a transportable O.S. so the hardware type didn't matter.
Micorosft's idea was to ride on the PC platform because they correctly
guessed that 'Big Blue' would dominate the market, with the added insight
there would be gaggles of competing copies to sell to (and you'll note that
my previous description, still quoted up there, specifically says their
vision was "the same software on anyone's" --->'PC clone'<---").

Paterson
copied it and Gates bought the copy.

Hate to burst your bubble but CPM was copied from DEC's RT11 O.S.

People do tend to 'copy' what previously worked. Or at least those with any
sense do.

 

[David Maynard]

clifto wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than
about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of
course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In
those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and
root for Microsoft.


I was stuck using Microsoft crap in 1980 and beyond,

No, you weren't. You chose it because there *were* alternatives.

and I had no love
for Microsoft or their products. I considered getting out of the business
when I was told PC-DOS was by Microsoft, until I found out they bought it
rather than wrote it.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:42:13 -0500, "" <a@b.c> wrote:

Hi,

I got my marvellous application working fine on my breadboard ;-)
It's around 25 TTL LS type ICs, plus few connectors strip and 5V PS.
It's not an high freq application ....

Now I need to transfert all that stuff on something but I never did that
before (I will need 2 boards)...

What should I use ?
I was thiking wirewrap, (is it still a good solution ?)

Wirewrap would work. The OKI WSU-30M manual tool is fine. I'd recommend
getting a pack or two of pre-stripped wire; makes things go a lot faster
if you're not having to stop to cut and strip.

Any suggestion ?

Also look at prototype boards like these from Jameco (also at lots of
other places like Digikey, even Radio Shack):
http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/catalogs/c254/P272.pdf. The "three hole
pad" setup is handy for 300-mil IC spacing.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[ehsjr]

Eddie wrote:

I checked the resistor that i have in series with the load and it is
510K. The color band is as follows. Green, Brown, Yellow and then gold
is the last color. What rating do you recommend for that resistor.
Thanks Ed

Maybe we're lost in terminology. The load is the light
that you want to turn on and off with the LM2907.
If it is in series with 510K, and the supply is at 12 volts,
current will be limited to no more than ~ .0000235 amps.
23.5 microamps through a lamp at 12 volts is not going to
make it glow. So something is wrong with the description.

Ed

 

[Bob Monsen]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:42:13 -0500, wrote:

Hi,

I got my marvellous application working fine on my breadboard ;-)
It's around 25 TTL LS type ICs, plus few connectors strip and 5V PS.
It's not an high freq application ....

Now I need to transfert all that stuff on something but I never did that
before (I will need 2 boards)...

What should I use ?
I was thiking wirewrap, (is it still a good solution ?)

You can buy prefab pcbs that have the same layout as solderless
breadboards. If you get some of those, you can just transfer the design
over a bit at a time. Make sure you test the individual boards as you
build them, and keep your prototype up and running as a debugging aid (ie,
don't tear it apart as you build the new one.)

You can also use a PCB layout program like 'eagle', and design a PCB for
it. It is easy, and amazingly cheap.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

Strange as it may seem, the power of mathematics rests on its evasion of all
unnecessary thought, and on its wonderful saving of mental operations.
- Ernst Mach

 

[:-)]

Thanks all for your answers

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

I think most people aren't interested because, like you, they are
frustrated with the current technology.

No, most people aren't interested because they aren't geeks, period.
They have lives outside of computers. They care no more about their
computers than they care about their telephones or toasters. They use
computers to accomplish some specific task, and then they are done.
Their are neither frustrated nor pleased by computers--they are
indifferent.

Given your frustration with the current technology.

I'm not frustrated with current technology. It all seems to work very
well.

Because it will provide access to disabled people and in the future
easier access to everyone.

Non-disabled people don't need easier access. Who should pay for
special accommodation of the disabled, and how much should they pay,
and which disabled people should get which proportion of the money?

There is great demand for it. The only problem is that people are
turned off by the current technology.

Nobody is clamoring for speech recognition. Most people don't use
computers that much and don't care. They are no more interested in
speech for their PC than they are in speech for their DVD players.

Microsoft has done many things at a net loss, like when trying to
steal market share.

Which things?

That's the norm. Microsoft could include high-quality speech if it
were truly interested in innovation. But it's not. You can blame it
on the fact that Microsoft must please its shareholders, nonetheless
it's true.

Microsoft already provides more accommodation of the disabled than any
other OS publisher. How much more do you want it to do?

But not within personal computing.

Within personal computing as well. But there are many types of
disabilities, and they all deserve consideration, in proportion to the
number of people afflicted with them. It's a question of balance.

For example, money spent to accommodate wheelchairs exceeds all other
expenditures on most other, more common disabilities combined, which
is a great example of enormous _imbalance_. I don't advocate that for
computers or for anything else.

I agree with that principle. But Microsoft trumpets the idea that
it's a compassionate, forward-looking high-technology company. Given
the lack of interest in speech, I don't believe it.

Uh, Microsoft is more interested in these things than any other major
software publisher.

I'm doing it right with only a USB microphone and speakers.

So you are doing it with special hardware, namely, a USB microphone
and speakers.

I am intimately familiar with the big antitrust trial. Microsoft
illegally destroyed Netscape's Navigator Internet browser business.
That is a fact and that was 17% of Netscape's revenue.

Netscape crashed and burned all on its own. It did that so quickly
that it's hard to imagine anything that Microsoft could have done that
would have significantly accelerated the crash.

Microsoft owns the monopoly operating system and office
applications. That's easy living.

Do you think so? Try it.

Just don't believe it when Microsoft tries to sell a compassionate,
forward-looking business.

I don't believe any company that makes such a claim. Microsoft is no
worse than anyone else, however.

Microsoft is the company that produces the monopoly operating system
and that is where speech belongs.

Because you say so?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

That is entirely false. Read how Microsoft crushed Netscape Navigator.
http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

As hard as it may be to believe, the declaration of a court is not any
kind of final or universal authority, except in legal terms.

Just like IBM self-destructed. Just like Ford Motor Co. self-destructed.
Just like Standard Oil self-destructed (actually had serious antitrust
problems).

Exactly.

Pure speculation. But in fact, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the
personal computer software market.

Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems. That's about
it.

Only a few believed personal computers are going away could you
believe Microsoft is going away.

I don't understand this statement.

Microsoft should be corrected to spur competition among all of the
other capable software developers here in the United States.

Legal "corrections" are notorious for their ineffectiveness. Market
forces are much more balanced and reliable, even if they don't move as
quickly as some might like.

Those who love communism most appreciate Microsoft's monopolies.

I don't see a connection between the two.

If you believe Microsoft is okay, then you are just ignorant of
the facts.

Or I simply disagree with you, which is not the same thing.

And in fact, there's very little difference.

In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public
utilities, then?

What part of "competition" don't you understand?

I understand it, but I also know that it's not always desirable.

lol

I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the
military?

That's why Microsoft has had so much legal trouble.

Microsoft has had a lot of legal trouble because it has made a lot of
well-funded enemies by virtue of its exceptional performance.

I guess you haven't interacted with consumers.

I've been doing it for most of my life.

I have plainly stated at least once already that multiple platforms
might not be a good idea.

Then why do you seem to object to Windows as a single platform?

I would seize a baseball bat from anybody who aggressively bludgeons
another person to death. I could not care less whether you legally
acquired and own that baseball bat.

You'd prefer to let that mass murderer with the machine gun continue
to shoot at innocent bystanders?

What part of "justice" don't you understand?

There isn't any part that I don't understand. I understand it only
too well. Do you know why the personification of justice is
blindfolded?

Because I'm using AMD very well.

Maybe you should buy a Mac.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Jasen Betts writes:

??? back in 92 I was dissapointed by the lack of quality in microsoft
products proactically everything they did seemed incomplete.

But 1992 wasn't very long ago. Think back further.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Mxsmanic]

clifto writes:

I wouldn't mind having his bucks, or even what he pays in taxes, but
I've hated his software since he was nothing but a rich kid with a
couple of computers.

Your statements are very revealing. There's no real connection
between his state of wealth at any time and the computers he may have
owned and the quality of the software his company sells--but you seem
to imagine such a connection. You hate his software because you hate
him, not because there's anything wrong with the software. That's
your prerogative, but it wouldn't do if you were responsible for IT
acquisitions in a large company, since it makes it impossible for you
to evaluate solutions unemotionally.

More than anything Gates was (and is) a marketer.

Have you met him? He's a geek, not a marketroid. He's smart, which
is is main asset, but he's no marketing genius. Microsoft marketing
campaigns have always been a bit stunted and laughable compared to the
campaigns of, say, Apple. But Gates actually delivered the goods, and
didn't have to depend on marketing, and that's why his company has
done so well.

He knows how to put just enough stuff into a box to get people
to buy the box.

That has never been the case for Microsoft up to now (although the
situation is changing now). I've seen others do it (e.g., Netscape),
but not Microsoft.

Microsoft would never hire me; I have no degrees.

Microsoft hires people without degrees. They are interested mainly in
smart employees, not in employees with degrees.

Of course, this, too, is gradually changing, now that Gates is
effectively out of the picture.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Dave]

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436322F0.5BB578F4@hotmail.com...

The other winding is likely 18-0-18 V AC and used for the split (
bipolar )
supply. The centre tap connects to the 'ground' of the supply.

There are two windings, one gives 5VAC single-tapped or two leads, the
second has four leads with varying voltages depending on which leads are
measured. No center tap. Too bad.

Note that 18V AC rectified will be about 24V DC. A +/- 24V DC supply will
toast
most op-amps.You need voltage regulators to reduce it to typically +/-
15V. The
regulators also remove most of the supply ripple.

Ah, now this is useful information. I have been poring over schematics for

power supplies and nowhere is it evident (and I obviously lack the training
to know) that you get higher DC voltage out of a rectifier than the AC
voltage in. Is there a "rule-of-thumb"? I see that above you note about
1.5X multiplier for the DC out of a rectifier. The particular circuit I'm
looking at shows a 32VAC CT transformer which is rectified, filtered,
regulated down to 18VDC, and filtered again. For my particular app, I don't
necessarily WANT a regulated 18VDC, I am okay with letting it float as the
op-amps are protected by more downstream regulators. 32VAC would give
~48VDC? You'd need one helluva beefy regulator (most of them that I've seen
can handle up to 30VDC) and heatsink to drop 30VDC!!! If the voltage is
filtered between the rectifier and regulator, why would you need to filter
it again after the rectifier? Could one assume that you'd need smaller
filter caps as you work your way downstream?

In this regard, I have a 12.6VDC CT x-former (which I thought would not be
enough voltage). I really only need 15VDC, so can I expect ~18VDC out of my
rectifier if I use 12.6VAC in?

While I'm at it with this enlightened audience, I have another basic
question: After the rectifier I have a 3300uF 50V electrolytic "filter cap"
and a 1uF disc "bypass cap". It is my understanding (and, hey, I'm not
batting a thousand here so bear with me) that the filter cap stores up
charge and compensates for voltage drops. Is this right? What does the
bypass cap do?

Thanks in advance for any and all replies.

Dave

Graham