[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: PCI Politics (was RE: why Target cannot change its mind)
>From: "Austin Franklin" <email@example.com>
>I have every idea how to get the signaling of PCI at 33MHz. It is not the
>PCI signaling that makes it difficult to be done outside of an ASIC. It is
>some of the cycle to cycle timing. Initially designing PCI without certain
>cycle to cycle timing constraints (basically too much logic between cycles)
>would have made a negligible impact on performance.
Are you talking about the parity checking, or something else? What would
you change, and how would it strike a better balance between the utility
of PCI and the ability of letting "the little guy" in the door?
> > The days of just slapping
> > some CMOS gates on a connector and whomping up a new
> > peripheral board are long gone, my friend. Where have you
> > been?
>Where have I been? Designing (over 50) PCI interfaces since its inception.
It sounds like you've been around a while, then. I suspect you
miss the days when a little company like Hercules could make
a fortune on the graphics board business or AST & QuadRAM
do their thing with memory cards and the like. All with a
four-layer fab (often with rework on it) and a handful of SSI.
I can see your point that the investment bar is higher for
a PCI design than an ISA/EISA/VLbus/whatever design because
of the ASIC requirement. Where I would differ is that the
bar was not above the heads of a small company. It was above
the heads of a couple of guys horsing around with circuits
in the garage.
Alan Deikman | 510 249 0800 Voice
ZNYX Networks, Inc. | 603 843 5867 FAX