Time to Upgrade ?:-}

[Martin Riddle]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:50:06 -0400, Martin Riddle
martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:09:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:02:05 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:28:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:



I'm getting the general impression that I should avoid 64-bit to make
sure that my legacy programs will still work. Is that correct?

...Jim Thompson
--

No, you should make the jump and adapt (with VMware or some other
method) or dump the really old 16 bit programs. Most 32 bit stuff will
still run. It's time, and it will be the last major change for a very
long time.


--sp

Is there any way to tell what type a specific program is? I haven't
updated my PSpice since 2003 when OrCAD Crapture and Cadence stopped
improving PSpice (simulator) and tried to force everyone onto Crapture
:-(

...Jim Thompson

I think if you open the exe up with a hex editor, and look at x0100,
if you see 'PE', then its a portable exe 32bit app.

Also if you change the compatibility settings under Win7, it will only
list Vista and up if it is 64bit, 32bit apps will show XP 98 95 etc.

Cheers

x0100 has nought but ....
x0110 has PE

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson

I think it is, SWcadIV.exe has PE moved a few bytes too, I'm not all
that familiar with the headers but PE is the Signature for the
portable exe just as the MZ at the begining is the Signature for DOS.

You can always run XP mode, in MS virtual Machine.

Cheers

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:53:42 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

John Fields

Crickets and bullfrogs started singing.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

>- it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient as the alternatives -

Post examples, retarded twit.

 

[Martin Riddle]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:09 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson

Shouldn't you already know, smartass?

Easy there chap, your dealing with a master.

Cheers

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:31:01 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:20:16 UTC+10, DeludedLinuxUserNumeroNull wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

Not by people

snipped retarded attempt at acting as if you know what modern
designers do. You do not, SlowBoy.

In your slightly-less-than-authoritative opinion.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

We are all well-aware of what you think you know.

Just like with the Litz wire
at 3kHz reference. Whereas you haven't the first clue, googletard,
Sloman.

Where you think that Teachspin's earth field nuclear magnetic resonance measuring gear is being sold to the mining industry to measure ground conductivity.

Try to get it into your head that the earth has a magnetic field of some 30 to 60 microTesla at the surface (less at the equator, more as you get closer to the poles) and that the proton has a resonant frequency of some 1.3kHz to 2.6kHz in that range of magnetic fields. That's what George Herold's coil was designed to probe - in teaching laboratories.

It may have reminded you of stuff that miners use, but you were wrong. Learn to live with the fact, rather than spraying out implausible claims in a futile attempt to wipe the egg from your face.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:24:45 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:50:43 -0400, Martin Riddle
martin_ridd@verizon.net> Gave us:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:09 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson

Shouldn't you already know, smartass?

Easy there chap, your dealing with a master.

Cheers

One who never seems to know shit from shinola, chap.

A circus flea like Sloman has him beat.

You should know that P G Wodehouse was once labelled "the performing flea" of English literature, a title that he liked so much that he published a book of letters under that title.

You do seem to share my opinion of Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, whose opinions on any subject other than integrated circuit design aren't up to much. Sadly, the rest of your opinions aren't all that well-grounded, and you probably distrust Jim's judgement for reasons that might not stand up to critical examination.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:20:16 UTC+10, DeludedLinuxUserNumeroNull wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

Not by people

snipped retarded attempt at acting as if you know what modern
designers do. You do not, SlowBoy.

In your slightly-less-than-authoritative opinion.

I know exactly what I am talking about. Just like with the Litz wire
at 3kHz reference. Whereas you haven't the first clue, googletard,
SlowBoy.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:06:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

DecadentLoser and ReallyFool are killfiled... don't feed the trolls.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I'll bet this fucktard doesn't even do $10k worth of consultations a
year.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 21:50:43 -0400, Martin Riddle
<martin_ridd@verizon.net> Gave us:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:47:09 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:36 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

So is it portable 32-bit?

...Jim Thompson

Shouldn't you already know, smartass?

Easy there chap, your dealing with a master.

Cheers

One who never seems to know shit from shinola, chap.

A circus flea like SlowBoy has him beat.

 

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 11:30:53 PM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-08-11, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

That sounds like a sizeable bug in VirtualBox.

It's not really a VirtualBox issue. It's 64 bit Linux with 32 bit XP incompatibility.

I almost always use bridged networking rather than NAT in VirtualBox, so perhaps that's why I have no problems.

Then we can't have static IP.

??? bridged puts the virtual machine on rhe same network segment
as the host machine with an individual IP addresses, you can use
DHCP, autoconfiguration, or static allocation as you see fit.
NAT hides it on a virtual LAN behiond the host's IP address.

That's for bridging the VM interface to the PM.

In our case, we have dual interfaces on the host PM. The public interface is static. The private interface is 192.168.20.1 and the server VM bridged to it. The server VM is running XP with Sybase/SQL server. The host PM interfaces are iptables firewall/NAT/dnsmasqed.

Now, the problem has nothing to do with VM. Networked XPs on 192.168.20 subnet would time-out with or without any VM running on the PM. Without consideration of VM, it's just a simple dual ported router/server. I am sure someone has the same setup running, perhaps with different hardwares/drivers..

Since it works fine for 32 bit, i am inclined to believe it is 64 bit hardware/driver problem.

Our boxes are Dell PowerEdge III 2950 with dual NetExtreme Gigabit Ethernet..

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 16:57:10 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill SlowBoy
bill.slowboy@gmail.com> Gave us:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:23:13 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill SlowBoy
bill.slowboy@gmail.com> Gave us:

- it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient as the alternatives -

Post examples, retarded twit.

Only a retarded twit would need them.

You are the jackass making the claim, Sloman. The onus is on you to
provide proofs.

Actually, it isn't. There's a long history on this discussion, and when the question was last discussed - a few years ago - the consensus was that the NE555 had stopped being used in new designs around 1990. It's theoretically a handy stop-gap if you need to do something in a hurry, but nobody with any serious design skills turned out to have used it for anything for many years.

> Or is that word too big for ya, child?

As usual, you don't know the history and are making a fool of yourself. Not for the first time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 17:32:39 UTC+10, DimwittedLinuxUserNumeroNull wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:10:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

Actually, it isn't.

Actually, it is. You just stated that there are better, cheaper and
even more efficient alternate means (circuits) but show no comparisons
and offer no proofs. You are pathetic, at best.

As usual, you snip the bit where I point out that it's a point I made years ago. The reality is that the NE555 has been obsolescent since about 1990. If you weren't a total twit, you'd have worked this out for yourself.

Because you are a total twit, there would be no point in recapitulating the argument, just for you - it's not as if mere facts are going to change your opinion, any more than they'd change krw's.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:13:36 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

snip

Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.

The perfect example of jobs where you want to minimise design time, and haven't got any interest in providing the best possible solution, as opposed to one which can be relied on to work.

If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.

Not really. There's a distinction between "best" and "tolerable".

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Particularly amongst people who can't be bothered to find anything better.

Often times, those of who know what they're doing will find that the
best solution is the one that solves the problem at hand without
gilding the lily.

Gilding the lily implies adding unnecessary features. Doing a more comprehensive optimisation may involve longer design time, but it isn't gilding any lilies.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more horses to use them on.

Well, with sales being what they are about 45 years downstream, one
would think that there are still plenty of workhorses out there which
use a 555 to good advantage.

More asses than workhorses.

The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient
as the alternatives - rather like the US constitution.

That's a red herring and really has no proper place here.

Rather like the US constitution, which is long past it's sell-by date, but still fondly maintained by people who should long ago have moved on to better solutions.

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

Thanks for that.

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

"Usually" means "pretty much all the time" but "easier" is definitely subjective, essentially depending on how lazy you are and how little pride you take in your work.

I see. You can't flesh out "some other way" so you revert to ad
hominem.

I can't be bothered fleshing out "some other way". The market has been doing that for some 25 years now, but legacy designers are still doinbg what worked for them back in the 1970's.

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Or we could have a flint-knapping competition ... the fact that you can use the 555 in lots of applications isn't a good argument for using it in most.

Nor did I say it was, my position being that one uses what's
appropriate for the work at hand, as opposed to using a silk purse
when a sow's ear would be good enough.

The 555 is hardly ever appropriate for the work in hand now, and hasn't been for some 25 years now. It's not inappropriate enough that you can't get away with using it, and if you need to cheap-skate on design time, doing what you did back in 1975 does save effort.

As for the flint-knapping, I asked for an example backing up your
claim, not a competition.

We've been here before. It's not the kind of claim that needs backing up one more time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:53:39 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:13:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.

I never liked "Occam's razor", but a definitely like 555's razor.

John Field redefined "best" to suit his own "get shot of it quickly" design philosophy. That's not Occams's Razor - which suggests that you shouldn't complicate your explanations any more than you absolutely have to.

Go away and get an education.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-08-11, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

That sounds like a sizeable bug in VirtualBox.

It's not really a VirtualBox issue. It's 64 bit Linux with 32 bit XP incompatibility.

I almost always use bridged networking rather than NAT in VirtualBox, so perhaps that's why I have no problems.

Then we can't have static IP.

??? bridged puts the virtual machine on rhe same network segment
as the host machine with an individual IP addresses, you can use
DHCP, autoconfiguration, or static allocation as you see fit.
NAT hides it on a virtual LAN behiond the host's IP address.

--
\_(ツ)_

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill SlowBoy
<bill.slowboy@gmail.com> Gave us:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 14:23:13 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill SlowBoy
bill.slowboy@gmail.com> Gave us:

- it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient as the alternatives -

Post examples, retarded twit.

Only a retarded twit would need them.

You are the jackass making the claim, SlowBoy. The onus is on you to
provide proofs.

Or is that word too big for ya, child?

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:45:53 -0700 (PDT), Bill SlowGang
<bill.slowgang@gmail.com> Gave us:

>We are all well-aware of what you think you know.

Just how many personalities do you sport, sport? You should get some
help with that.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:10:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

>Actually, it isn't.

Actually, it is. You just stated that there are better, cheaper and
even more efficient alternate means (circuits) but show no comparisons
and offer no proofs. You are pathetic, at best.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

snip

Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the years.

I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.

The perfect example of jobs where you want to minimise design time, and haven't got any interest in providing the best possible solution, as opposed to one which can be relied on to work.

---
If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.
---

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Particularly amongst people who can't be bothered to find anything better.

---
Often times, those of who know what they're doing will find that the
best solution is the one that solves the problem at hand without
gilding the lily.
---

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more horses to use them on.

---
Well, with sales being what they are about 45 years downstream, one
would think that there are still plenty of workhorses out there which
use a 555 to good advantage.
---

>The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as efficient as the alternatives - rather >like the US constitution.

---
That's a red herring and really has no proper place here.
---

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

Thanks for that.

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

"Usually" means "pretty much all the time" but "easier" is definitely subjective, essentially depending on how lazy you are and how little pride you take in your work.

---
I see. You can't flesh out "some other way" so you revert to ad
hominem.
---

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Or we could have a flint-knapping competition ... the fact that you can use the 555 in lots of applications isn't a good argument for using it in most.

Nor did I say it was, my position being that one uses what's
appropriate for the work at hand, as opposed to using a silk purse
when a sow's ear would be good enough.

As for the flint-knapping, I asked for an example backing up your
claim, not a competition.

John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 15 August 2015 22:51:39 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 03:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:13:36 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 15 August 2015 10:53:48 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 14 August 2015 19:09:43 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:35:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:10:37 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:13:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:38:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:14:20 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:14:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:32:24 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:37:38 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:24 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com

snip

Crazy is fun when designing new stuff, something stable old you
wouldn't know anything about.

Yes, 555 chips provide endless creative opportunities.

How would _you_ know?

Perhaps from listening to you tell us that - repeatedly - over the
years.

I've never made that claim, but what may make you think that I have is
that I've provided lots (hundreds?) of easy solutions for querents'
requests for help, here, over the last 20 years or so using 555s with
a sprinkling of discretes around them.

The perfect example of jobs where you want to minimise design time, and haven't got any interest in providing the best possible solution, as opposed to one which can be relied on to work.

If it can be relied on to work for the intended purpose, that is -
more often than not - the best solution.

Not really. There's a distinction between "best" and "tolerable".

The "distinction" seems to be an irrelevant fabrication, in this case,
in that you can't post any hard evidence to refute my argument and
want, rather, to derail the discussion with your nonsense.

Your claim is that the 555 isn't obsolescent. That isn't an argument, but rather a opinion. The hard evidence was posted here years ago, when most of the people who bothered to comment said that they'd not used a 555 for for years, and pretty much all the rest said that they'd used for quick and dirty solutions when they couldn't be bothered to find something better.

The creative energy might almost certainly have been better devoted
to getting more modern devices to do similar stuff,

Point taken, but even today a 555 is often the chip of choice for
those who want a a non-software/firmware encumbered solution for a
simple problem.

Particularly amongst people who can't be bothered to find anything better.

Often times, those of who know what they're doing will find that the
best solution is the one that solves the problem at hand without
gilding the lily.

Gilding the lily implies adding unnecessary features. Doing a more comprehensive optimisation may involve longer design time, but it isn't gilding any lilies.

Gilding the lily means spoiling something that's already perfect by
presuming to make it "better", which would certainly include
unwarranted overoptimization.

The NE555 was never perfect - Hans Camenzind mentioned the thing he could have done better in his book and it's stuck with a pathetic power transistor for doing the switching.

Last time I looked sales were brisk at about a billion per year, and
it seems like everybody's making them, so it's not like they're buggy
whips.

Buggy whips stopped being manufactured when there weren't any more horses to use them on.

Well, with sales being what they are about 45 years downstream, one
would think that there are still plenty of workhorses out there which
use a 555 to good advantage.

More asses than workhorses.

You don't work, do you?

I don't get paid.

The 555 works - it's just that it isn't as cheap, as small or as
efficient as the alternatives - rather like the US constitution.

That's a red herring and really has no proper place here.

Rather like the US constitution, which is long past it's sell-by date, but still fondly maintained by people who should long ago have moved on to better solutions.

You need to look up "red herring" and post facts, instead of
self-indulgent,irrelevant twaddle.

The self-indulgent twaddle is what's posted by people like James Arthur, who idolises the founding tax evaders, and claim that the US constitution is the peak of constitutional design, never subsequently equalled - when my secondary school history lessons on the Australian Constitution discussed in some detail the defects of the US constitution and how the Australian constitution had avoided some of them. Sadly, it didn't go for proportional representation with the enthusiasm it should have, and the 1948 German constitution leaves it for dead.

The analogy with your enthusiasm for the 555 is striking.

but you've worked out how to get the 555 to do an amazing variety of tricks,

Thanks for that.

despite the fact that it's usually easier to do the job some other way.

Noting that "easier" is subjective, I'd welcome your input as to what
you mean by "usually" and by "some other way".

"Usually" means "pretty much all the time" but "easier" is definitely subjective, essentially depending on how lazy you are and how little pride you take in your work.

I see. You can't flesh out "some other way" so you revert to ad
hominem.

I can't be bothered fleshing out "some other way".

Sounds to me like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm anything but stuck - I can use any component I like. There was a time when idiot managers would suggest that I might use the 555 for some job or other, and I'd have to set them straight, but those times are long past.

The market has been doing that for some 25 years now, but legacy
designers are still doing what worked for them back in the 1970's.

Well, then, if that technology's been standing still for decades and
you've been keeping up with the times, it ought to be duck soup for
you to come up with at least something showing you know what you're
talking about, yes?

Probably. However, I've pointed out here from time to time that the cheapest MOS power transistor is better than what you get in a 555, and the dimmest micro makes a better timer than the 555, and you never seem to get the message.

At this point, a couple of schematics, one describing a circuit using
a 555 and yours, describing a "better" alternative, seems to be in
order.

Or we could have a flint-knapping competition ... the fact that you can use the 555 in lots of applications isn't a good argument for using it in most.

Nor did I say it was, my position being that one uses what's
appropriate for the work at hand, as opposed to using a silk purse
when a sow's ear would be good enough.

The 555 is hardly ever appropriate for the work in hand now, and hasn't been for some 25 years now.

Unless you can explain where a billion units a year are going, I'd
have to say that there's something seriously wrong with your
presumption to know what the work in hand is now.

As I keep on repeating, the billion units a year are going into legacy designs, and there are "legacy designers" around who thing that because the 555 was the answer to a maiden's prayer in 1971, it's still the obvious choice for similar sorts of jobs forty years later.

You seem to be one of them.

It's not inappropriate enough that you can't get away
with using it, and if you need to cheap-skate on design time,
doing what you did back in 1975 does save effort.

Having kept up and been in the trenches, I'm well aware of what's
available now and how to use it, and if I decide to use a 555 because
it fits an application perfectly, Then guess what...

It fits the application "perfectly" because it was what you used the last hundred times you did much the same job, and you can't be bothered thinking up a different solution.

As for the flint-knapping, I asked for an example backing up your
claim, not a competition.

We've been here before. It's not the kind of claim that needs backing up one more time.

Well, be that as it may, It'd be nice to see it backed up once in a
row.

"In a row"? You want a "row" of examples of non-uses of the 555?

I've spent my career not using it. Not intentionally - it came up once or twice, but was never good enough for the stuff I needed done at the time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney