Custom Search
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Wow, you guys have all been really helpful. The conclusion seems to be that it would depend on system bandwidth, but if there are 20 (possibly 1,000 as I scale to larger problems and need greater capacity) "reference" million-bit-vectors, then I only need to read the input vector from memory 1/20th as often as your figure, right? Jan wrote: >> Budget? Time? All counts. I'd prefer a scalable solution so I can pay more later for more speed. I parse pieces of a sentence independently, so the problem breaks up easily across several fpga cards, if that is cheaper. I perform Monte Carlo sampling, which means that I run 30 indpendent experiments. So if I'm bandwidth limited I should breakup the problem to 30 fpga equipped computers. Kolja wrote: >> On the other hand the P4 value seems to low. According to "Hacker's >> Delight" pages 65ff counting the number of bits in a 32-bit word takes >> less than 20 instruction. I agree that I should write it in C/C++ to see what my max P4 speed is, but http://www-db.stanford.edu/~manku/bitcount/bitcount.html indicates that 16-bit lookup tables are most efficient (fits in L1 cache on a AMD64, which I don't have, using only 3 clock cycles), which is what I already use. The next step is definately to implement in C/C++ by hand. The consensus seems to be that it could be done well in fpga, and that price scales with the problem much better than clusters of CPU's acting on their own. It also seems that I would have to hire someone to build it because it is not simple enough for a newbie to try. I hack xboxes, i-opener (net appliance), and other hardware so I am a DIY learning kind of guy, and it seems to me that at 27 years of age, being able to implement pieces of my algorithms in hardware would be a great advantage to decades of my future work. I could get $200 to $500 from my advisor for a developer's kit for sure. Any additional suggestions on specific hardware, estimated time to develop for a newbie, etc. are greatly appreciated. Thanks! AndrewFArticle: 100676
Hi everyone, As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore. It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer (the part I am looking for specially). Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online section. Many thanks JacquesArticle: 100677
<jaxato@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Hi everyone, > > As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this > morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore. > It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing > Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more > expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer > (the part I am looking for specially). > Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it > really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online > section. > > Many thanks > Jacques > avnet possible did not like that xilinx sold directly so xilinx had to remove the silicon devices from their online shop :( really very bad move ! AnttiArticle: 100678
Go to digikey.com, and search for xilinx. The paper catalog has an extremely poor selection of Xilinx FPGAs, but the web selection is better. Their search method is awful :-( Peter Alfke, from homeArticle: 100679
rickman wrote: > > But table 30 on page 55 seems to be saying that if Vccint or Vccaux dip > below the minimum values, but still above the reset trip points, the > configuration can be corrupted and the FPGA will not be put in reset. Most digital suppliers will only commit to monotonic power supplies. [and even then, sometimes some pretty tight dV/dT - IIRC, see the MAX II ? ] If you have brownout dips, you are pretty much on your own.... > In this case should I assume that the IOs can then be in any state and > may hang the DSP memory bus? If so, I need to use the PowerOK on the > LDO regulators to either halt the DSP or make sure it gets an NMI and > runs only from internal memory. I would prefer to be able to keep the > DSP running normally and record the power event in memory. I have some > concerns about the system power supply design and would like to be able > to show clear evidence that the power is not stable rather than having > to extrapolate from processor resets. Well, if you are really worried about the system power, you will need all the belts and braces at your disposal - even run to a separate small uC, whose sole job is power integrity and logging ? -jgArticle: 100680
andrewfelch@gmail.com schrieb: > but http://www-db.stanford.edu/~manku/bitcount/bitcount.html indicates > that 16-bit lookup tables are most efficient (fits in L1 cache on a > AMD64, which I don't have, using only 3 clock cycles), which is what I > already use. That link suggests that for 32-bit words you get to about 2.4Gbps in a P4 in 2002. For 128-bit words in 2006 you probably get at least twice that value. So something below 10gbps is likely to be the value for the P4 using SSE2. > Wow, you guys have all been really helpful. > > The conclusion seems to be that it would depend on system bandwidth, > but if there are 20 (possibly 1,000 as I scale to larger problems and > need greater capacity) "reference" million-bit-vectors, then I only > need to read the input vector from memory 1/20th as often as your > figure, right? My figures assumed that you need to read the vectors that you compare the input value against from memory and that that dominates the bandwidth. If you can afford the money to store all input vectors on chip except for the input vector you can reach insane speeds (TM). You can get about 10 vectors in a very expensive FPGA. If you do your computation for many input vectors for the same reference vectors, you can also do the following: Split the on chip memory to contain k bits each for N reference vectors. As well as MxN intermediate counts for processing M input vectors. Now you load part of your reference vectors and process the corresponding parts of the input vectors over and over again. For 100 reference vectors and 100 input vectors and k=32 you get 51200 bits per bus cycle. (you read 200 words for 10000 dot products of 32 bits) With a 200MHz bus that's 1Tbps. That design uses about 20000 LUTs and can be implemented in an affordable XC3S1600E evaluation board with a fast 32-bit memory (did anybody say PCIe?) Kolja Sulimma P.S.: Masking bit vectors and doing sums of lookup table accesses can be done really fast on graphics cards....Article: 100681
What is the general view on the usefulness/value of systemc? I very familiar with Verilog and used to be very familiar with VHDL. Systemc seems to be lower level where you are almost writing the simuator. That would appear to give more flexibility and abstraction. But after you've completed the systemc design it appears you have to rewrite it in a language that can be synthesized in order to actually make a chip. Any comments? -- rbArticle: 100682
Antti Lukats wrote: > <jaxato@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>Hi everyone, >> >>As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this >>morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore. >>It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing >>Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more >>expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer >>(the part I am looking for specially). >>Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it >>really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online >>section. >> >>Many thanks >>Jacques >> > > avnet possible did not like that xilinx sold directly so xilinx had to > remove the silicon devices from their online shop :( > really very bad move ! Yes, it does smack more of political reflex, than rational thinking. Note that Microchip is moving in the _opposite_ direction - they offer quotes up to 10K, and recently added factory programming flows to their on-line order flows. In other words, they look keen for your business (all volumes), and seem less under the influence of their distributors. I had a quick look at the Avnet link, and "not in stock, XX Weeks" was common. Thus Xilinx sample procurement seems to have fallen thru the cracks, in this decision. -jgArticle: 100683
Peter Alfke wrote: > Go to digikey.com, and search for xilinx. > The paper catalog has an extremely poor selection of Xilinx FPGAs, but > the web selection is better. > Their search method is awful :-( If you find Digikey's interface poor, perhaps Xilinx could learn from this web link ? http://www.altera.com/buy/buy-index.html Some other company seems to have found a way to have a web store, and an (almost)* workable Digikey link ? -jg * I tried MAX7000, and get this bemusing response emp7 "Manufacturer Part Number: 132 phrase not found" What, nothing at all ? Funny, phrase not found reported, plus a _specific_ number ?! - so I click on the 'phrase not found', as that seems to be a web link, and voila, finally, EPM7xx listings at Digikey! Strange that, MAX 3000 works fine - so, some wrinkles to iron out here...Article: 100684
Jim Granville wrote: > * I tried MAX7000, and get this bemusing response > > emp7 > "Manufacturer Part Number: 132 phrase not found" > > What, nothing at all ? > > Funny, phrase not found reported, plus a _specific_ number ?! - > so I click on the 'phrase not found', as that seems to be > a web link, and voila, finally, EPM7xx listings at Digikey! > > Strange that, MAX 3000 works fine - so, some wrinkles to iron out here... A little more on this : Seems strange indeed, as the 'phrase not found' seems to be trying to indicate not in stock. Only devices with MOQs and high ASPs show up. Their search button is also called "phrase not found" - oops However, if I go straigt to Digikey, there are actually plenty of EPM7xx in stock, with no MOQs ?! Altera will be eager to fix that :) -jgArticle: 100685
Hello everyone, Well I have checked on Digikey and they do not have the FPGA we need, which is the XC3S200-4VQ100C. We have dealt in the past with Nuhorizons, but we've got some issues with them and we would prefer to deal directly with god. The Xilinx online shop was next to perfect and the fact that they were shipping our parts in different shipments was actually beneficial for us. It saved us on custom and duties that we had to pay, if we were to receive the parts as a whole. We are a small startup company and we have long term plans for Xilinx FPGA products. We had reached the point where we had everything running smoothly, like after fine tuning your radio receiver to the correct station, but now, we have to rework everything and adjust everything again. Tonite I am disappointed with Xilinx. :~( JacquesArticle: 100686
"David M. Palmer" <dmpalmer@email.com> wrote in message news:150420061212343276%dmpalmer@email.com... > In article <1145050118.699722.123650@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > <andrewfelch@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am a Python programmer writing neural network code with binary firing >> and binary weight values. My code will take many days to parse my >> large data sets. I have no idea how much fpga could help, what the >> cost would be, and how easy it would be to access it from Python. The >> problem is similar to competitive networks, where I must dot product >> many million-length bit vectors (which only change occasionally) with 1 >> input vector. Anybody want to estimate the cost, speedup, and value an >> fpga could offer me? > > I assume you have looked for algorithmic speed-ups? (Also FPGAs have > different algorithmic speed-ups available than conventional computers.) > > As a Python programmer, you will probably find it easier to use C than > to learn VHDL/Verilog to the extent you need to implement this. If a > single order-of-magnitude speed-up will solve your problems, then > changing to a language closer to the metal may be enough and is easy > enough to try. In that vein, you should definitely look at the performance you can get using the free (IIRC) Intel Performance Library. Bit vector manipulations are probably some of the graphics-related operations that are supported by MMX and its descendants that are in the P4 processor. If your compiler isn't smart enough to do it natively (Intel sells high performance C compilers), then figuring out the free API and calling it is still quite doable. We do some digital signal processing (FFTs, filtering, reconstruction, etc.) on a mix of platforms. Sometimes FPGAs make sense (less size, weight, and power) and sometimes Pentiums or Power PCs make sense (cost, ease of programming). -MartyArticle: 100687
Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity. I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the ladder, up to one step below the very top. Maybe I have to go one stop higher. Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation. Obviously, our company could do much better... Peter Alfke, from homeArticle: 100688
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message news:44418deb@clear.net.nz... > Antti Lukats wrote: > >> <jaxato@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >> news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >>>Hi everyone, >>> >>>As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this >>>morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore. >>>It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing >>>Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more >>>expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer >>>(the part I am looking for specially). >>>Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it >>>really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online >>>section. >>> >>>Many thanks >>>Jacques >>> >> >> avnet possible did not like that xilinx sold directly so xilinx had to >> remove the silicon devices from their online shop :( >> really very bad move ! But avnet won't give samples unless your a large company otherwise you have to purchase them. > Yes, it does smack more of political reflex, than rational thinking. > > Note that Microchip is moving in the _opposite_ direction - they offer > quotes up to 10K, and recently added factory programming flows to their > on-line order flows. > In other words, they look keen for your business (all volumes), and seem > less under the influence of their distributors. > If only they had some chips with a bit more grunt like an arm7 . A lot of manufacturers need to learn from microchip. Philips is quite good, but depends on your local distributor. > I had a quick look at the Avnet link, and "not in stock, XX Weeks" was > common. > > Thus Xilinx sample procurement seems to have fallen thru the cracks, in > this decision. > > -jg Simple , avoid using xilinx parts. Use the companies that want your business. If the management is to stupid to realise if people can't get small quantities for prototyping and designs especially for those doing contract work, we won't use their products, bad luck ,that is their problem. Might take a few years to have a budget impact. AlexArticle: 100689
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:19:22 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote: >What is the general view on the usefulness/value >of systemc? >I very familiar with Verilog and used to be >very familiar with VHDL. >Systemc seems to be lower level where you >are almost writing the simuator. That would >appear to give more flexibility and abstraction. >But after you've completed the systemc design >it appears you have to rewrite it in a language >that can be synthesized in order to actually >make a chip. >Any comments? I am not sure why you say systemc is lower level. I have the opposite impression. Also there are systemc synthesizers. It's also quite a bit faster to simulate. As someone who writes C++ models using a self-developed fixed-point class library, I welcome systemc.Article: 100690
"mk" <kal*@dspia.*comdelete> wrote in message news:kvg342hdjeb3o0b93i8oca3ko3sha6tq42@4ax.com... > On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:19:22 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" > <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote: > >>What is the general view on the usefulness/value >>of systemc? >>I very familiar with Verilog and used to be >>very familiar with VHDL. >>Systemc seems to be lower level where you >>are almost writing the simuator. That would >>appear to give more flexibility and abstraction. >>But after you've completed the systemc design >>it appears you have to rewrite it in a language >>that can be synthesized in order to actually >>make a chip. >>Any comments? > > I am not sure why you say systemc is lower level. You raise an interesting point. Systemc is basically an extension of c++. C++ is a software language and not even a high level software language per the traditional description. (C has been described as 'portable assembler'.) When one writes in Systemc much of what one is writing are things that I recognize as being internal to traditional simulators such as Modelsim and nc-verilog. In those senses SystemC is low level. Being low level like that it is less constrained and allows more abstract/behavioral coding. Abstract/behavioral coding can be considered high level. > I have the opposite > impression. Also there are systemc synthesizers. Interesting. Can you name some? I asked the prof about that and he gave no indication that there were such. I can imagine that there would be synthesizers for SystemC but I would expect they would be distinctly limited in the range of possible contructs that can be synthesized. > It's also quite a bit > faster to simulate. Interesting. In my minimal experience so far it seems slower to compile but faster to run. And now that I think about it, run time is more critical. > As someone who writes C++ models using a > self-developed fixed-point class library, I welcome systemc. Interesting. Another thought that comes to mind is regarding graphical debugging tools. With a traditional HDL and simulator one can probe and graphically display internal signals. I haven't seen that capability with SystemC. What I've seen so far is like the earliest crude HDL simulators that only had text based output. If you've got a complete, working, self-checking testbench that's just fine. All it has to do is print 'Pass' or 'Fail'. But in order to produce a testbench a graphical display of internal signals is essential. -- rbArticle: 100691
"Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1145151568.450696.36950@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity. > I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the > ladder, up to one step below the very top. > Maybe I have to go one stop higher. > Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation. > Obviously, our company could do much better... > Peter Alfke, from home Feel free to print out all the comments here and give them to who ever you need to. Can't they see that if you loose small sales / prototype quantities and you competitor looks after that market segment , you are just going to start bleeding sales and only be restricted to the large companies. The small contract designers just stop using xilinx. But a problem hits a few years down the track, when the large companies start taking on new people who prefer to use your competitors tools and devices as they are familiar with them. Avnet can be fine for ordering boards and equipment some times but they are usually quite slow and prefer dealing with large companies. You guys just want to give sales to Altera , Lattice etc , don't you ? AlexArticle: 100692
"Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1145151568.450696.36950@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity. > I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the > ladder, up to one step below the very top. > Maybe I have to go one stop higher. > Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation. > Obviously, our company could do much better... > Peter Alfke, from home > Dear Peter, glad to see you to stick up - let me try to help as much as I can (to rock the higher boat) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My mother did show me a picture of my dad in the history book of Estonian Aeronautics. So the strongest male influence from my young years was one simple word, from one teacher in the 'rocket model' hobby club. This word is (its one word in estonian): "Decision courage" I do find this word so good one, so good that it qualifies every male giving to a child nothing more than this one word as a good father. Xilinx removing the Spartan-3 (and possible other silicon devices) from direct online offering is a bad example of "Decision courage-less" (one word in estonian) behaviour. No matter if the decision to have Silicon Devices (including Spartan-3) in online shop was later seen as bad decision, it was that sort of "executive decision" that has to be kept even if it was a bad decision. Stepping back from it show the weakness of the Xilinx (executives). There could be 3 reasons for the withdrawal (3 that I and I think most other people can figure out) 1) Xilinx sees direct sales as too much "hassle" - well if it is so, then no matter how much hassle it is, Xilinx should stick to the previous executive decision (to have the silicon devices in online shop) 2) Xilinx has serious availability and/or yield issues and removing the devices from its own online shop gives a possibility to try to hide and mascerade those yield problems - by blaming the distrubutors not having stock (but devices actually being available). Needless to say that all that kind of 'mascerade' attempts are silly and dont fulfill its purpose at the end of the day anyway. 3) Xilinx did step back because of pressure of the distributors (mainly Avnet?) - if that was the reasons then it again demonstrates nothing more than the weakness of Xilinx as global company and the weakness (decision courage-less) of Xilinx executives. ... As of current the status of Xilinx silicon availability is getting worse - 1) Digikey should not be considered as source for Xilinx, they have some items in stock but what they have is very random, and items that they used to have may not be available any more any day (specially those you need when you need). 2) I have never dealt with NuHorizons, but all I have heard is only problems. To my emails I have never had any response from NuHorizons, so I am not considering them for anything. 3) I have had several issues with Memec before they merged into Avnet, there is no memec so no more issues :) 4) My only purchase from Avnet was 6 month late (despite order confirmation). Others have expressed the Xilinx parts availability situation from Avnet worse than from Memec Thats are the 'sources' for Xilinx components. Altera has direct online shop, with pretty much pricing and atock info for latest parts - everyone finds that a very good thing. Not to mention that everyone I have talked too, have said pretty much one thing - Altera's software is just simply getting better. Better and better every release/udpate. Lattice has no direct online orders, but the stock at disties like Mouser also for latest parts (machXO, XP) is checkable with a few mouseclicks. Also other distributors claim immediate fom stock delivery (what I can also confirm personally having received the parts). Xilinx has greatly imrpoved the price/perfomrance ration of Xilinx own evaluation boards after overpriced ML300 so my current primary source for Xilinx eval boards would be Xilinx direct (online shop), having the silicon devices orderable as side orders, would be real good thing. If they arent, well Altera has all from one shop. Similarly as others have said already, the lack of silicon devices in oline shop is just another drop to choose alternative vendors. And dear Xilinx, an even an ocean is made of single drops of water. It's hard to tell when last drop falls that makes the decision scale to turn over (in favor of competitive products). But every drop makes that possibility (of such decisions) closer. Antti Lukats, Xilant Tecnologies PS we will have some (FPGA related product) to launch soon (within 8 weeks max)Article: 100693
hi everybody, maybe we can do a petition about this xilinx store ?... i'm French user and i can affirm that Avnet France, preferer (to not says want ) only big customers .. they are slow and expensive.. totaly incompatible with prototype phase. Maybe Xilinx prefer that we try Lattice or others parts ?... i'm realy not happy against that problem. they can be take example from Microchip & sample service ... ( sorry for my bad english ! ) Regard's Philippe <jaxato@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:1145130612.059195.298690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Hi everyone, > > As I was buying some components from the Xilinx online store this > morning, I noticed that they no longer support silicon device anymore. > It seems that it is now AVNET that is taking care of distributing > Xilinx FPGA online. The worse thing is that the price is more > expensive, and they do not have all the parts that Xilinx use to offer > (the part I am looking for specially). > Now i've got a few questions for the Xilinx people out there. Is it > really true or if it not, then what is the updated link for your online > section. > > Many thanks > Jacques >Article: 100694
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message news:tPk0g.4939$3W1.1547@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> >> I am not sure why you say systemc is lower level. > > You raise an interesting point. Systemc is basically > an extension of c++. It is more than an extension to C++, it includes a cycles based simulator and VCD dumping support. > C++ is a software language > and not even a high level software language per > the traditional description. IMHO C++ is a high level language, why do you think it isn't? > (C has been described > as 'portable assembler'.) When one writes in > Systemc much of what one is writing are things that > I recognize as being internal to traditional simulators > such as Modelsim and nc-verilog. > In those senses SystemC is low level. Check out the appendix in the OSCI SystemC userguide, if you want you can use HDL style programming for SystemC. > > Being low level like that it is less constrained > and allows more abstract/behavioral coding. > Abstract/behavioral coding can be considered > high level. > >> I have the opposite >> impression. Also there are systemc synthesizers. > > Interesting. Can you name some? What about Catapult-C, Agility, Forthe? > I asked the prof about that and he gave no > indication that there were such. And he is a "prof" in.............:-) > I can imagine that there would be synthesizers > for SystemC but I would expect they would > be distinctly limited in the range of possible contructs > that can be synthesized. Check out the (not yet ratified) synthesisable SystemC subset. > >> It's also quite a bit >> faster to simulate. > > Interesting. In my minimal experience so far > it seems slower to compile but faster > to run. And now that I think about it, run time > is more critical. > >> As someone who writes C++ models using a >> self-developed fixed-point class library, I welcome systemc. > > Interesting. > > Another thought that comes to mind is regarding > graphical debugging tools. With a traditional > HDL and simulator one can probe and graphically display > internal signals. I haven't seen that capability with > SystemC. Check out Modelsim, you get nearly the same capability as the supported HDL languages, in addition you can display transactors in the next upcoming 6.2 release. I assume NCSim and others will or have the same capability. > What I've seen so far is like the earliest > crude HDL simulators that only had text based output. > If you've got a complete, working, self-checking testbench > that's just fine. All it has to do is print 'Pass' or 'Fail'. > But in order to produce a testbench a graphical display > of internal signals is essential. Even the free OSCI simulator support VCD dumping, run your simulation, log the signals then use free GTKView or Dinotrace to display them. SystemC is not perfect (check out the error messages, what a pain!) but unless Accellera start making noises about SystemVHDL/HypherVHDL or whatever they call it SystemC is very suitable for testbenches and high level modeling. Mixing HDL and SystemC is very easy (at least in Modelsim) and will give you goodies like constraint random/transaction level modelling and a dead easy C interface :-) Hans www.ht-lab.com > > -- > rbArticle: 100695
On 15 Apr 2006 18:39:28 -0700, "Peter Alfke" <alfke@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Well, I'll try another attack on our demonstrated stupidity. >I have screamed and hollered for almost a year, and sent e-mails up the >ladder, up to one step below the very top. >Maybe I have to go one stop higher. >Steve Knapp and I are very frustrated about this situation. >Obviously, our company could do much better... >Peter Alfke, from home If you want to give an example of someone who has got it right : http://www.microchipdirect.com/Article: 100696
Hi Philippe, I am totally for that. Like im sure if we could get like 10,000s names, then we would have achieve something. I was thinking about how they took the decision of removing the online shop. Just recently, I noticed that they added the PROM section to the online shop. This lend me to believe that at one point, they were actually promoting and saw a future for online shopping, but something happened that made them took a 180 degrees U turn. I wouldnt be surprised if in late March 2006, the big bosses of Xilinx and Avnet had lunch in one of these fancy and they decided: Hey let's do something really bad, let's take out the online shop. And I am pretty sure that it was instigated by Avnet. Yesterday, I was checking out their shipping policy and the way they do business for international customers. Avnet ask that you purchase a minimum order of $500, if you are from outside the states or canada. Cmon people, you would get 50 x XC3S100 for that price and this isnt prototyping anymore. Then, when I think that Xilinx advertise on their site, in big, brite and bold: "World=B4s Lowest Cost FPGAs - now available in prototyping quanties from Avnet"... ironical isnt it, makes me wonder where we are heading. Lets face it, we have a problem here and we should find a solution, and quick. Now, Peter and al, you should advise us of the possible moves that we've got in order to replace or convice your bosses of getting back our dear online shop. >From a previously happy canadian customer. JacquesArticle: 100697
Jim Granville wrote:
> http://www.altera.com/buy/buy-index.html
> Some other company seems to have found a way to have a web store
In that same link, note that Altera is now making the same
mistake with development software that Xilinx is making
with devices. So it goes.
-- Mike Treseler
Article: 100698
Antti Lukats wrote:
> Altera's
> software is just simply getting better. Better and better every
> release/udpate.
Which is surprising to me, considering that the initial HDL support
on MAXplus2 was the Subaru 360 of CAE :)
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/360van-sideview3.jpe
> even an ocean is made of single drops of water. It's
> hard to tell when last drop falls that makes the decision scale to turn over
Last year, at my local ski hill, there were 14 ski schools.
This year, all but 5 were sent packing. Next year there
will be only one ski school.
-- Mike Treseler
Article: 100699On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:28:31 -0700) it happened "Mike Treseler" <mike_treseler@comcast.net> wrote in <4af2kgFsjcngU1@individual.net>: >Antti Lukats wrote: >> Altera's >> software is just simply getting better. Better and better every >> release/udpate. > >Which is surprising to me, considering that the initial HDL support >on MAXplus2 was the Subaru 360 of CAE :) >http://www.cars101.com/subaru/360van-sideview3.jpe > >> even an ocean is made of single drops of water. It's >> hard to tell when last drop falls that makes the decision scale to turn over > >Last year, at my local ski hill, there were 14 ski schools. >This year, all but 5 were sent packing. Next year there >will be only one ski school. > Would be a pity if only Altera was left, as a bit of competion improves quality and lowers prices.
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z