A clear victory for MMP

[Chris]

Chuck Moore's Weblog updated

http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm

[Paul Rubin]

Chris <xris...@me.com> writes:
> Chuck Moore's Weblog updated
> http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm

I like his shoes in the lecture photo.

[Howerd]

On Monday, October 7, 2013 2:24:14 AM UTC+1, Chris wrote:
> Chuck Moore's Weblog updated
>
>
>
> http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the update :-)

From Chuck's blog :
"Jury decided HTC infringes my '336 patent. Took 5 years, but a clear victory for MMP. Expect licensing will be revitalized."

Can anyone enlighten me as to what HTC and MMP mean?

Best regards & TIA,
Howerd

[Andrew Haley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Htc
MMP is Moore Microprocessor Patents

[Howerd]

On Monday, October 7, 2013 1:13:22 PM UTC+1, Andrew Haley wrote:

Thanks!

[visua...@rocketmail.com]

MMP is the abbreviation for "Moore Microprocessor Portfolio", also see
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/10/prweb4600264.htm

[jkn...@nicorp.f9.co.uk]

On Monday, 7 October 2013 02:48:14 UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:

>
> I like his shoes in the lecture photo.

They look like Vibram Fivefingers to me. Totally predictable IMO that he'd wear something like those...

J^n

[Brad Eckert]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 9:24:14 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
> Chuck Moore's Weblog updated
>
> http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm

It's upbeat and doesn't mention Leckrone, so I assume this is good for Chuck. Helps keep GreenArrays solvent and rely less on volunteer help.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <fdbcf372-5e93-42d1...@googlegroups.com>,

I've never seen other than upbeat messages from Chuck.
Your conclusion is IMHO way too optimistic.

Remember you need a Leckrone type to turn a patent portfolio into
money. That kind of person tend to line their own pockets preferably.

I pray for 10 million royalties, 5 million investment in application
notes and the enlightment to produce part of the GA chips in DIL packages.
(but I never believed in praying anyway...)

Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[rickman]

HTC Corp is an Asian cell phone maker. It seems TPL (the company that
is supposed to be managing the MMP for Chuck) has been suing the
companies that use the CPUs that infringe rather than going after the
companies that make the CPUs. It's all rather complicated (or seems so
to me).

Intel is paying for at least one of the patents. I found an article
that says ARM was resolved of infringement of at least one of the
patents. So I'm not sure what products are left that aren't using one
of those two sources of CPUs?

--

Rick

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 10/10/13 8:18 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 10/7/2013 7:44 AM, Howerd wrote:
>> On Monday, October 7, 2013 2:24:14 AM UTC+1, Chris wrote:
>>> Chuck Moore's Weblog updated
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Thanks for the update :-)
>>
>> From Chuck's blog :
>> "Jury decided HTC infringes my '336 patent. Took 5 years, but a clear
>> victory for MMP. Expect licensing will be revitalized."
>>
>> Can anyone enlighten me as to what HTC and MMP mean?
>>
>> Best regards& TIA,
>> Howerd
>
> HTC Corp is an Asian cell phone maker. It seems TPL (the company that
> is supposed to be managing the MMP for Chuck) has been suing the
> companies that use the CPUs that infringe rather than going after the
> companies that make the CPUs. It's all rather complicated (or seems so
> to me).

TPL = Lekrone.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

>
> Intel is paying for at least one of the patents. I found an article
> that says ARM was resolved of infringement of at least one of the
> patents. So I'm not sure what products are left that aren't using one
> of those two sources of CPUs?
>


--

==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[Rafael Deliano]

> I pray for 10 million royalties, 5 million investment in application
> notes and the enlightment to produce part of the GA chips in DIL packages.
> (but I never believed in praying anyway...)

I have put the GA board in a box in the cellar by now: the cpu is
too limited for anything usefull, decent documentation wouldn't help.

GA144 is Chuck Moore's hobby horse masquerading as a commercial company.
And his customer orientation is after all legendary. Novix
multiplication bug: "It never affected any of my applications...".

Whats needed is someone like Jeff Fox who can sell.
And a more decent product. Not a bunch of crippled transputers,
at 1,8 Volt, in a unbreadboardable package.

My odd advice:
* if possible team up with Chip Gracey of Parallax.
The propeller is much more usable and reasonably successfull.
But obviously not enough for a second generation chip.
The propeller multitasking is nice, the CPU is so-and-so,
the Spin-language ugly.
Something like a RTX2000 CPU and a FORTH in ROM combined
with the propeller multitasker would be a decent combination
that would appeal to two established small user communities.

* test the market and finance via kickstarter / indiegogo.
If a well prepared campaign doesn't succeed with the hobbyist
and small volume user then its no go. There are no big volume
industrial buyers readily available.

MfG JRD

[forther]

On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:35:56 AM UTC-7, Rafael Deliano wrote:

> I have put the GA board in a box in the cellar by now: the cpu is
> too limited for anything usefull, decent documentation wouldn't help.

Define useful. I know people succeeded with audio DSP, image processing and
cryptography with ga144 and its predecessor - s40. At least for them it is quite useful.

[rickman]

On 10/11/2013 2:35 PM, Rafael Deliano wrote:
>> I pray for 10 million royalties, 5 million investment in application
>> notes and the enlightment to produce part of the GA chips in DIL
>> packages.
>> (but I never believed in praying anyway...)
>
> I have put the GA board in a box in the cellar by now: the cpu is
> too limited for anything usefull, decent documentation wouldn't help.

I won't argue that the GA144 is a universally useful device. The first
DSP chips were real dogs and highly specialized. The first FPGAs lacked
so many of the features FPGAs now have. One of the first MCUs was the
8051, the device everyone loves to hate.

The GA144 is the first device of it's kind. Yes, it is crude and has a
lot of limitations, but it has a lot of potential.

> GA144 is Chuck Moore's hobby horse masquerading as a commercial company.
> And his customer orientation is after all legendary. Novix
> multiplication bug: "It never affected any of my applications...".

I also won't argue with this. I wasn't aware of the Novix mult bug.
But I don't see GA as a great company in many respects, but then they
ware working on a shoestring budget. It's actually amazing they can get
product out the door really.

> Whats needed is someone like Jeff Fox who can sell.
> And a more decent product. Not a bunch of crippled transputers,
> at 1,8 Volt, in a unbreadboardable package.

Can't say I follow here. I agree that a programmable device with 1.8
volt I/Os is a bit pointless... you need to do level conversion for
nearly any I/O commonly used. But what is wrong with the package? If
you are expecting DIPs you are so out of step with the real world, the
world that actually buys product and keeps factory doors open.

My complaint with most of the FPGA makers is that they don't use a
package like this. Instead they use packages that require very fine
pitch board layouts and very, very small drills. 0.4 mm spaced uBGAs
are common. Try using one of those, the GA144 10 mm sq package will
seem a breath of fresh air.

> My odd advice:
> * if possible team up with Chip Gracey of Parallax.
> The propeller is much more usable and reasonably successfull.
> But obviously not enough for a second generation chip.
> The propeller multitasking is nice, the CPU is so-and-so,
> the Spin-language ugly.
> Something like a RTX2000 CPU and a FORTH in ROM combined
> with the propeller multitasker would be a decent combination
> that would appeal to two established small user communities.

If you are comparing the parallax with the GA144 you don't understand
the GA144. It is *not* just a collection of many processors. Viewing
it that way gets you nothing. Think of a 22V10 compared to an FPGA,
that would be the Parallax compared to the GA144.

> * test the market and finance via kickstarter / indiegogo.
> If a well prepared campaign doesn't succeed with the hobbyist
> and small volume user then its no go. There are no big volume
> industrial buyers readily available.

That is an interesting idea actually.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Can you tell us about these apps? Are any of them commercial? I have
yet to find a commercial app using the GA144.

BTW, I got my Schmartboard GA144s the other day. I need to figure out
what I need to do to get one running.

--

Rick

[Rafael Deliano]

> The GA144 is the first device of it's kind.

Not really.
There has been a long tradition of arrays down to
ILLIAC IV. They had big CPUs ( ILLIAC, Transputer ) and
small "CPUs"/PEs like CLIP4 and DAP. The later were
actully only SIMD-arrays, no independent CPUs. But
they are somewhat comparable to the crippled GA144.
The DAP was arguably commercially viable, as it was
still around in the 80ies. It used a fat SRAM early on
and "a variant of Fortan because thats what the
customers wants" to paraphrase them. So no
Color-Forth, no Spin-language, no Occam.
The CLIP group and everyone else soon too came to the
conclusion that they needed more RAM per PE too.
The Martin Marietta GAPP had even a odd Forth
connection: Ting used a NC4000 as I/O-processor.
There is a vast amount of literature out there
about these machines, how they evolved, what applications
were viable. Guess computer cowboy Moore isn't a reader.

Key problem: these machines were and are almost
exclusively for the "government projects" market.
The real computer cowboy is Chip Gracey because
his chip you can buy at digikey and ebay. Usable
for the hobbyist today, can slowly penetrate to industry.

> But what is wrong with the package? If
> you are expecting DIPs you are so out of step with the real world, the
> world that actually buys product and keeps factory doors open.

That world doesn't buy from a company like GA. If they had any
credibility there they would get venture capital.
Hobbyists accept GA, small industry too. If you run small
projects using exotic chips isnt much risk. But a lot of projects
die at the breadboard stage. Not everyone has the equipment
to get BGAs and similar stuff in and out of boards.
Most users wouldn't mind if the "DIL40" is a FR4 carrier board
with a small LCN/BGA and capacitors on it that plugs in a DIL40
socket. Yes its more expensive, but it are boutique chips anyway.

> If you are comparing the parallax with the GA144 you don't understand
> the GA144. It is *not* just a collection of many processors. Viewing
> it that way gets you nothing. Think of a 22V10 compared to an FPGA,
> that would be the Parallax compared to the GA144.

As far as i remember there was an evolution from smallish single
CPUs MuP21 ( Ting ), F21 ( Jeff Fox ) that worked on external memory.
And were in no way competitive with controllers with integrated
memory from industry. So that was a dead end.
The F18 CPU was scaled down further to exclusively use SRAM on chip.
And a very rudimentary 4-way interface was patched on so these
can form an array. And thats it. There were never any thoughts
who should use it and why and how. Otherwise simulations how that
thing could do a FIR-filter or a fourier transform ( via Chirp-Z )
would have been done and a application notes about it would be
ready now.
On the other hand the machine of Chip Gracey has vast amounts
of SRAM ( 32kByte ), is easier to understand by the average user
and a better fit to his needs.

>> * test the market and finance via kickstarter / indiegogo.

> That is an interesting idea actually.

Beeing low volume ( <500 ) patching a-ready-to-run
hardware on a FR4 carrier board its doable by stackprocessor
on FPGA. Even a controller with FORTH-in-ROM/FLASH would
be applicable. Kickstarter / indiegogo is not about fancy
technology.

MfG JRD

[Paul Rubin]

Rafael Deliano <rafael_...@arcor.de> writes:
> Most users wouldn't mind if the "DIL40" is a FR4 carrier board

That's sort of what a Schmartboard is, though not a DIL:

http://schmartboard.com/index.asp?page=products_csp&id=532

[forther]

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:36:37 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

> Can you tell us about these apps?

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/37775/InTech-Wavefront_systolic_algorithms_for_implementation_of_stereo_vision_and_obstacle_avoidance_computations_on_a_very_low_power_mimd_many_core_parallel_architecture_applications_for_mobile_systems_and_wearable_visual_guidance_.pdf

http://www.hgi.rub.de/media/sh/veroeffentlichungen/2013/05/07/GA144_crypto.pdf

[Chris]

> Intel is paying for at least one of the patents. I found an article
> that says ARM was resolved of infringement of at least one of the
> patents. So I'm not sure what products are left that aren't using one
> of those two sources of CPUs?

http://patriotscientific.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=29

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <1aa7a8a7-b63a-401a...@googlegroups.com>,

I would be interested whether Intel pays rightly, i.e. not by extorsion.
Is Intel really using idea's from the portfolio that they don't came up
with themselves, or is it a matter of Lecrone being the first to patent
an obvious idea in Chuck Moore's name that Intel overlooked to patent?

(Of course Intel pays legitimately, i.e. according to lex, the law.
It is a matter whether the law reflects right. We know in patents it
often doesn't.)

[John Rible]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:14:46 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <1aa7a8a7-b63a-401a...@googlegroups.com>,
> [snip]

> I would be interested whether Intel pays rightly, i.e. not by extorsion.
> Is Intel really using idea's from the portfolio that they don't came up
> with themselves, or is it a matter of Lecrone being the first to patent
> an obvious idea in Chuck Moore's name that Intel overlooked to patent?
>
> (Of course Intel pays legitimately, i.e. according to lex, the law.
> It is a matter whether the law reflects right. We know in patents it
> often doesn't.)

> [snip]

In 2004-5 an Intel lawyer using a friend's login came on clf looking for info
about Chuck's ideas. He was outed and then revealed that Intel engineers were
starting to use the same techniques (2004) that Chuck had 'invented' (and
patented) ten years earlier. The result was a legally complicated mess that's
still playing out today.

-John

[Rod Pemberton]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:14:46 -0400, Albert van der Horst
<alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> I would be interested whether Intel pays rightly, i.e. not by extorsion.

We all know you meant "extortion" not "extorsion". 's' -> 't'

But, it's kind of funny... Yes, both are English words.


Rod Pemberton

[rickman]

Yeah, there are a few apps which are systolic in nature that can be done
on the GA144. But has it been used in any significant products? I
would love to hear any of the success stories.

I just don't get why they don't feel they need to address any of the
shortcomings of the chip. Is it that they don't feel it is needed or
that they just don't have the means to spin another chip?

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 10/13/2013 4:36 AM, Rafael Deliano wrote:
>> The GA144 is the first device of it's kind.
>
> Not really.
> There has been a long tradition of arrays down to
> ILLIAC IV. They had big CPUs ( ILLIAC, Transputer ) and
> small "CPUs"/PEs like CLIP4 and DAP. The later were
> actully only SIMD-arrays, no independent CPUs. But
> they are somewhat comparable to the crippled GA144.
> The DAP was arguably commercially viable, as it was
> still around in the 80ies. It used a fat SRAM early on
> and "a variant of Fortan because thats what the
> customers wants" to paraphrase them. So no
> Color-Forth, no Spin-language, no Occam.
> The CLIP group and everyone else soon too came to the
> conclusion that they needed more RAM per PE too.
> The Martin Marietta GAPP had even a odd Forth
> connection: Ting used a NC4000 as I/O-processor.
> There is a vast amount of literature out there
> about these machines, how they evolved, what applications
> were viable. Guess computer cowboy Moore isn't a reader.

What is similar to the GA144 other than the fact these were multiprocessor?

> Key problem: these machines were and are almost
> exclusively for the "government projects" market.
> The real computer cowboy is Chip Gracey because
> his chip you can buy at digikey and ebay. Usable
> for the hobbyist today, can slowly penetrate to industry.

Again, nothing like the GA144 except multiple processors. If you think
the GA144 is just a multiprocessor chip you just don't get the GA144.

>> But what is wrong with the package? If
>> you are expecting DIPs you are so out of step with the real world, the
>> world that actually buys product and keeps factory doors open.
>
> That world doesn't buy from a company like GA. If they had any
> credibility there they would get venture capital.
> Hobbyists accept GA, small industry too. If you run small
> projects using exotic chips isnt much risk. But a lot of projects
> die at the breadboard stage. Not everyone has the equipment
> to get BGAs and similar stuff in and out of boards.
> Most users wouldn't mind if the "DIL40" is a FR4 carrier board
> with a small LCN/BGA and capacitors on it that plugs in a DIL40
> socket. Yes its more expensive, but it are boutique chips anyway.

Hobbiests are unimportant to the profit of any company over $1
million/yr revenues, unless you are Heathkit or the like. Zero point in
even discussing the hobby market regarding GA.

>> If you are comparing the parallax with the GA144 you don't understand
>> the GA144. It is *not* just a collection of many processors. Viewing
>> it that way gets you nothing. Think of a 22V10 compared to an FPGA,
>> that would be the Parallax compared to the GA144.
>
> As far as i remember there was an evolution from smallish single
> CPUs MuP21 ( Ting ), F21 ( Jeff Fox ) that worked on external memory.
> And were in no way competitive with controllers with integrated
> memory from industry. So that was a dead end.

You forget the RTX2000 which is the closest thing ever to an actual
Forth CPU. Its life has ended, but it had a useful run.

> The F18 CPU was scaled down further to exclusively use SRAM on chip.
> And a very rudimentary 4-way interface was patched on so these
> can form an array. And thats it. There were never any thoughts
> who should use it and why and how. Otherwise simulations how that
> thing could do a FIR-filter or a fourier transform ( via Chirp-Z )
> would have been done and a application notes about it would be
> ready now.

I agree that it appears the applications for the GA144 were unknown at
the time it was designed. Rather it seemed to be an interesting design
optimized for certain features while totally ignoring requirements in
many apps.

> On the other hand the machine of Chip Gracey has vast amounts
> of SRAM ( 32kByte ), is easier to understand by the average user
> and a better fit to his needs.

To Chip Gracey's needs? Oh, the user's needs... really? All of them?
that's a rather large statement and ignores the advantages of the GA144.
What if your needs included ultra low power consumption?

> >> * test the market and finance via kickstarter / indiegogo.
> > That is an interesting idea actually.
>
> Beeing low volume ( <500 ) patching a-ready-to-run
> hardware on a FR4 carrier board its doable by stackprocessor
> on FPGA. Even a controller with FORTH-in-ROM/FLASH would
> be applicable. Kickstarter / indiegogo is not about fancy
> technology.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

--

Rick

[Paul Rubin]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
> I just don't get why they don't feel they need to address any of the
> shortcomings of the chip. Is it that they don't feel it is needed or
> that they just don't have the means to spin another chip?

They claim to be working on a 32 bit version.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:44:22 -0400, Howerd <how...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2013 2:24:14 AM UTC+1, Chris wrote:
>> Chuck Moore's Weblog updated

>> http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm
>

> From Chuck's blog :
> "Jury decided HTC infringes my '336 patent. Took 5 years, but
> a clear victory for MMP. Expect licensing will be revitalized."
>

... "clear victory" ...

What an interesting choice of words.


Technology Properties Limited
50% owner of MMP (Moore Microprocessor Patent) portfolio
assets: $500K to $1 million
liabilities: $50 million to $100 million
Pres.: Daniel McNary Lekrone, aka "Mac" Lekrone
CEO: Chet Brown
CFO: Dwayne Hannah
CTO: Charles Moore

"On March 20, 2013, Technology Properties Limited LLC
filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of California."


Patriot Scientific
50% owner of MMP (Moore Microprocessor Patent) portfolio
OTC BB security
symbol PTSC
USD $0.11/share
P/E 28.25
ROA: -12.07%
EBITDA: USD $ -1.43 million
Total Cash: USD $7.25 million
Market Cap: USD $45 million
interim CEO/CFO: Cliff Flowers


One is bankrupt (ongoing) and the other is headed
there, or so it seems ... negative $1.43 million
in earnings per year, just a few years of cash,
security under $1 USD. Just how does one define
a "clear victory"? ISTM that a very realistic
outcome for both is they'll be for sale in short
order, unless those licensing fees are absolutely
outrageous, bordering on unjust enrichment.


Rod Pemberton

[rickman]

Which solves what problem exactly?

--

Rick

[Paul Rubin]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> They claim to be working on a 32 bit version.
> Which solves what problem exactly?

I suppose we'll find out if they ever release it.

[Rafael Deliano]

>> ILLIAC IV. ... CLIP4 ... DAP ... GAPP

> What is similar to the GA144 other than the fact these were multiprocessor?

There has obviously been a long tradition of
building computer arrays chessboard like with
4 interconnections per PE.
Either with big CPUs like ILLIAC and the Transputer
and then with a reduced number of PEs.
Or with a big number of minimalist PEs like
CLIP4, DAP ... These were limited by beeing SIMD,
but that makes not much difference to the rather
crippled GA144.

There is the famous Elon Musk quote on SpaceX
in their early years:
"Well, I have tried to learn as much as possible
from prior attempts. If nothing else, we are
committed to failing in a new way."
Skipping the first sentence and just
beeing different is obviously not enough.

> you just don't get the GA144.

Neither does any else it seems.
I at least have the evaluation board and
had a serious look at the gadget.
And my view is that the PE is too small.
RAM obviously. And i don't like CPUs without
XOR opcode.
Minimum would be something like a von Neumann
PIC16 as PE.

> Hobbiests are unimportant to the profit of any company over $1
> million/yr revenues,

I do not see "$1 million/yr revenues" by GA selling GA144s.
Chip Gracey did prove that selling to the hobbyist is viable.
But it has never been the typical option.
Bill Mensch got his 65816 into production
via Korea. No chip manufacturer in the US wanted the 65816.
And Koreas semiconductor industry was then so insignificant
that they wouldn't get a second source offer for a established CPU.
Apple could use the chip because it was available as sample
and in volume.

> You forget the RTX2000 which is the closest thing ever to an actual
> Forth CPU. Its life has ended, but it had a useful run.

I think Charles Moore is still associated by the general public
with that chip. It would be an easy sell.
Nobody expects and wants a parallel processor
from him. A rather conventional 16/32 bit stackprocessor with
limited multitasking capability ( similar to Parallax )
and enough microcode so one can claim "runs high level
language in hardware" would get customers in industrial control.

> To Chip Gracey's needs? Oh, the user's needs... really? All of them?
> that's a rather large statement and ignores the advantages of the GA144.
> What if your needs included ultra low power consumption?

Chip Gracey's hobby horse has proven to be commercially viable.
When Digikey stocks GA144s one can discuss the technical merits.

MfG JRD

[Paul Rubin]

Rafael Deliano <rafael_...@arcor.de> writes:
> There has obviously been a long tradition of building computer arrays
> chessboard like with 4 interconnections per PE. Either with big CPUs
> like ILLIAC and the Transputer and then with a reduced number of PEs.

ILLIAC was a hypercube, I thought. Not sure about Transputer.
Chessboard would be 8 interconnections per PE, I'd hope (kingwise
moves). It seems unfortunate that the GA didn't also have 8, since it
would still be very local, yet make routing a lot easier. Some
further-reaching interconnects would be good too. FPGA's have a mix of
these, from what I understand.

> And my view is that the PE is too small. RAM obviously. And i don't
> like CPUs without XOR opcode.

The GA144 has XOR, their assembler just use the mnemonic OR for it, due
to idiosyncracy.

> Minimum would be something like a von Neumann PIC16 as PE.

They're committed to stack machines, which have had some success, but
yeah, more memory would help it a lot. Not necessarily ram: with some
program flash at each node, the 64 words of ram would then be sufficient
for lots of things.

> Chip Gracey did prove that selling to the hobbyist is viable.

Somebody is buying all those raspberry pi's...

> A rather conventional 16/32 bit stackprocessor with limited
> multitasking capability ( similar to Parallax ) and enough microcode
> so one can claim "runs high level language in hardware" would get
> customers in industrial control.

Maybe in the 1980's. That wouldn't compete today with the ubiquitous
ARM cores and compilers everywhere.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <526ccde1$0$9515$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>,

Rafael Deliano <rafael_...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> ILLIAC IV. ... CLIP4 ... DAP ... GAPP
>
>> What is similar to the GA144 other than the fact these were multiprocessor?
>
>There has obviously been a long tradition of
>building computer arrays chessboard like with
>4 interconnections per PE.
>Either with big CPUs like ILLIAC and the Transputer
>and then with a reduced number of PEs.
>Or with a big number of minimalist PEs like
>CLIP4, DAP ... These were limited by beeing SIMD,
>but that makes not much difference to the rather
>crippled GA144.

There is a tremendous difference with the transputer links ...

1. The transputer links are not setup in a fixed layout
2. The transputer has just one order of magnitude between the off chip
transfer of a word and its processing.
3. The transputer has a word size that is sensible, plus floating point.

I was thinking about doing a fast gcd (which is fundamental to factoring
large numbers and so indirectly related to cryptography.).
It needs two pipelines that can contain a large number, where each member of the
pipeline can talk to the corresponding other member. 128 processors for a
1Kbit number.
This kind of pipeline cannot be accommodated.

>
>There is the famous Elon Musk quote on SpaceX
>in their early years:
>"Well, I have tried to learn as much as possible
>from prior attempts. If nothing else, we are
>committed to failing in a new way."
>Skipping the first sentence and just
>beeing different is obviously not enough.
>
>> you just don't get the GA144.
>
>Neither does any else it seems.
> I at least have the evaluation board and
>had a serious look at the gadget.
>And my view is that the PE is too small.
>RAM obviously. And i don't like CPUs without
>XOR opcode.

With 32 instructions to study this remark undermines your authority.

Obviously XOR is the most fundamental opcode allowing
reversable computing on quantum computers.
So you've studied the chip? Apparently not enough. It has an
instruction that is called OR, bit it really is an XOR.

Ouch! That hurts, but you're right.

>
>MfG JRD

[rickman]

Chip Gracey's product is designed for and marketed to hobbyists? I
don't think so. It may be bought by hobbyists, but that is not the
intended market nor the profit source.

The rest of your post is pretty much not anything I feel the need to
continue to respond to. The GA144 is not a bunch of Transputers or ARM
CPUs, it is not trying to be that. It is something different and until
you can accept that and learn how to use it you will fail to understand
it.

I have a current product using an FPGA because there were no MCU chips
that could provide all the interfaces needed. The GA144 is the only
device that could potentially replace the FPGA in this design. The
processing would map well to the GA144 elements and the low power
capability would be useful. The only downside is the 1.8 volt I/Os
which would require additional chips or transistors to provide level
shifting.

That said, the GA144 will not be used because of the uncertainty of the
company, not the design of the chip.

I won't argue that the GA144 is an ideal product. But when you express
your preference for larger processors or more memory you are simply not
considering the device properly. If you need a screwdriver, then use a
screwdriver, not a wrench. But don't say the wrench is a poor tool
because it doesn't turn screws very well.

--

Rick

[Rafael Deliano]

> ILLIAC was a hypercube, I thought.

No details on that in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC_IV
So had a look at Slotnicks description in Scientific American 1971:
its a flat square. There was an alternative view of that
with all 64 PEs in a line but with an additional link to another
PEs 8 places away.
Cubes were an idea of the 80ies with everything "massively
parallel". Even the original 256 PE ILLIAC was not that.
But it had big 64bit float PEs.

> Not sure about Transputer.

Always 4 links as far as i remember.

> Chessboard would be 8 interconnections per PE, I'd hope (kingwise
> moves).

CLIP4 ( early 70ies ) chip had originally 8 because its known that
has technical advantages in image processing. But after that everyone
settled on 4 because easier/cheaper in hardware.

>> Minimum would be something like a von Neumann PIC16 as PE.
> They're committed to stack machines, which have had some success,

Having seen the MARC4 instruction set i have no doubt that a
similar compact stack processor is possible. But that would
have to be similar in performance to a PIC16. Not only in
available memory, but also a instruction set that is acceptable
to someone used to programming 8 bit CPUs.

>> A rather conventional 16/32 bit stackprocessor with limited
>> multitasking capability ( similar to Parallax ) and enough microcode
>> so one can claim "runs high level language in hardware" would get
>> customers in industrial control.

> Maybe in the 1980's. That wouldn't compete today with the ubiquitous
> ARM cores and compilers everywhere.

Some time ago i tried toggling a portpin with a ARM from Energy Micro:
slower then the 8 bit 8MHz MC68H908 i am normaly using.
In that ARM the ports were called by C routines provided by the
manufacturer because not much documentation about the rather complex
internals of the I/O were available.
I am in no doubt that ARMs are good for running Linux. But i am very
much in doubt that the main use of industrial controllers is running
a PC/minicomputer operating system.

MfG JRD

[Rafael Deliano]

> That said, the GA144 will not be used

Wonderfull, we are coming to
the same conclusion.
Oddly enough pretty much the same one
every one else has come to.

MfG JRD

[Rafael Deliano]

> There is a tremendous difference with the transputer links ...

I am not saying the PEs of ILLIAC & transputers are similar
to the GA144. But patching up PEs with 4 links as array
doesn't make it "the first device of it's kind".

> With 32 instructions to study this remark undermines your authority.

It doesn't. It simply says something about their documentation
if they call XOR anything else. There are crippled commercial CPUs
without XOR out there like the ST62, so i wasn't too surprised.

Since i had the board then, someone asked me if i could do
something like 10000 0 DO LOOP to see how fast it would go.
Answer from eForth: DO LOOP is advanced technology and not
implemented in the basic package. That did surprise me for
a moment. How could anything be shipped that would foul up
on "Hello world" class programs ?
I think time has shown that hardly any who bought the board
did any demo application with it at all. Not to mention any
that was worth bragging about.

MfG JRD

[rickman]

So are you planning to toss it or what? I'd be happy to pay the
shipping if you wish to give it a toss my way.

--

Rick

[Chris]

I would like to have a go with a GA144 evaluation board. I must get around to buying one.

-The GA144's well thought out machine instructions look interesting.
-polyFORTH is cool, I am still using 16bit polyFORTH under MS-DOS!!!?

GreenArrays has just updated arrayForth®
User's Manual

Updated to correspond with software release 02b. IDE and framer support programming both chips on an EVB. A new booting option loads one or both chips using a minimal boot stream through serial port, considerably faster than the IDE method, without altering flash. polyFORTH F18 code now supports Ethernet daughter board.

[the_gavino_himself]

I agree.

1 pc running firefox with network and firefox ish browser and then microsoft and longsoon and arm are all running in fear since forth chip would probably cost 1% and use 1% power.

ret are racing to get everyoen on proprietary cell networks b4 everyone switches to openbsd desktop running icewm or to a colorforth 144 chip greenaray box.

when someoen does a aweb start up on 10 144 green array boxes and can gnerate fast webapps with 1% power and money of amd or intel server pizzaboxes then everyoen will SHIT

[the_gavino_himself]

work just bought 6 rasberry pi mini pcs for little simple jobs around the place

if g144 chip could run firefox and or be used to generate dynamic html for e commerce letting you skip amd and intel and arm then it could take off bigtime

I wonder if netbsd could be ported to g144??

if check can emualte a unix, hek most web startups are on debianm which is garbage comapred to netbsd or freebsd or archlinux

provide a platform!!