Using PC HW

[tom cloud]

>I'll agree 'a car is no place for pc's' It can be done (and is) but why make
>extra trouble.
 [ snip ]
> ..... The 68332 is a magnatude better for EFI, _AND_ it has a nice
>rich instruction set, including the TPU and other nice thing. If you want
>built in A/D they have a version with that too. But the idea is the same, a
>PC mudder board will be about the worst thing that you could base a system on. 
 [ snip ]
>>I've just *begun* using a Philips 8xC552 uController, and the thought
>>of the time and effort and extra hardware in using a PC to control
>>a car makes me want to PUKE!!!!!  Not to mention how FECKIN' BIG'N
>>UGLY it would be!!!!!  Forget it!!! All this wasted bandwidth is makin
>>me vomit!!!
 [ snip ]
well, at least we have strongly held opinions.  mine is that using a
CP/M derivative (i.e. MS/PCDOS) and Intel derivative processor buys
one the most bang for the buck.  now, it's got some downsides.  the
Motorola instruction set is more elegant -- so what!  there's more
software for the PC.  but, a PC mudder bored wasn't designed for
process control (EFI is a process control problem).  it's certainly
more flexible (from some points of view) than ANY available 68xxx
system available (more hardware via plugin cards, more software,
cheaper, etc., etc.)  but it's B-I-G !  it's got connectors (the
bane of any high rel app).  it's got so damm much VLSI ASIC's it's
almost impossible to get total control of it.

so watta i think?  i think the PC as a platform looks great.  i'll
probably use a 68xxx.  actually, if i could get Wesley's 'calibrator',
i'd use the eec-iv and go drivin'.


Tom Cloud <cloud at peaches.ph.utexas>