A .Net CPU

An anonymous reader writes "Windows for devices has an article about the .Net CPU. The chip is programmed with a subset of the CLR and runs the same software as the SPOT smart watches. Among other things, "[t]he computer module is implemented in the format of a 32-pin "DIP" (dual inline package) chip, allowing the module to conveniently plug into a standard 32-pin DIP socket. In addition, the ".netcpu CPU Module" integrates 4MB of nonvolatile Flash memory (interfaced via an SPI interface on the SoC). It also provides 24 general purpose digital I/O lines, which are multiplexed with other functions including 8 VTU ports, a USB port, two serial ports, and SPI and I2C interfaces." More information about the product can be found at the .netcpu company website."

Re:So

[Tim C]

Why does it seem scary? What do you imagine the chip will do?

It's just a CPU for the .net CLR, that's all, in much the same way as Pentiums and Athlons, etc, are CPUs for x86 code. It's not going to prevent you from running Linux, or reach up and take control of your PC and/or spy on you for Bill.

It is not a real CPU , from what I read.

[Gopal.V]

a CPU for the .net CLR, that's all, in much the same way as Pentiums and Athlons, etc, are CPUs for x86

No, it is a CPU for .NET CLR as much as a Gumstix is a CPU for Linux kernel. It's just a VM embedded on firmware, NOT a REAL CPU.

Btw, the JVM FPGA is a real example of a VM less execution (or more correctly , a native JVM + support libs).

Re:It is not a real CPU , from what I read.

[the angry liberal]

No, it is a CPU for .NET CLR as much as a Gumstix is a CPU for Linux kernel. It's just a VM embedded on firmware, NOT a REAL CPU.

I can only begin to guess what your definition of a CPU is. Anyway, it still isn't going to eat your mother or pull your cats tail. It is just a chip from a vendor you don't like. Move on.

Re:Scary (saracasm)

[the angry liberal]

Sorry, Microsoft-- just because you want something to be true doesn't mean that it is.

Perhaps if you put your troll's club down long enough to take a look at sourceforge, you would notice most of the newer open source applications for Windows are being developed in .NET.

It won't take over the Internet, but it has been well accepted and is easy to use.

I wonder though, with all this FUD, if anyone can produce real numbers showing which is in more demand in the workplace: Linux developers vs .NET developers. I'm not talking about which is more 31337, I am talking about which one will find more steady income and have less trouble when they need to change jobs.

Security ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if someone discover a flaw in the CLR ?
Do we have to buy another processor ? or flash another CLR ?

Placing anything on a processor is a *pretty* stupid idea.

Re:Scary (saracasm)

[shufler]

As you mentioned, newer Windows applications are being written in .NET, and you go on to ponder what the demand is. I don't know of any numbers, but I'd imagine .NET developers would be in all sorts of demand with respect to developing on any Windows platform, after all, .NET is the new API which replaces Win32.

I agree that there is all sorts of FUD flying around about .NET, and it's pretty sad that it is. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but anyone who cannot recognise the Official API of future Windows development is in serious trouble (if they intend on developing future Windows applications, that is). As you said, .NET isn't going to take over the Internet (who said it would in the first place?), but it will take over ALL Windows development.

All that said, I seem to remember reading about how Microsoft was dropping .NET, however I highly suspect I dreamt it.

Re:Scary (saracasm)

[benjymous]

Personally as someone who's long developed Windows Win32/MFC code (in C++) and is now moving to C# .NET stuff, I'm finding .NET an absolute doddle.

let's face it - MFC and Win32 are old and have been cobbled together, seemingly at random over the lifespan of the whole Windows family, meaning nothing feels like it's ever really been designed

One function returns a colour, another function needs a colour. Oh dear, one uses some kind of int, the other a struct (oh and another some kind of class) - lets bog down our code with lots of conversion functions - Most of the time the sensible obvious approach to a task is the wrong one.

So far in .NET, whenever I've wanted to do something, I've looked at the classes, thought "How would it be sensible to do this", and 9 times out of 10 it works perfectly

Re:So

[Taladar]

It is an entirely different situation.

They can't just kill backwards compatibility now since it is the one big reason to stay with Windows. Most businesses are evaluating other OS now and if the change to a new Windows version requires rewriting all your programs (I know they will probably implement a compatibility layer but we know how well that worked in the past) then they might just as well rewrite them on Linux (or some other OS that 'lacks' MS Security Features (TM) ).

Re:.Not a .NET CPU

[Anonymous Coward]

the Jini's fall is solely based on cost. Why spend almost $100.00 for a single jini chipset for your devicewhile a regular embedded CPU costs $7.00 has more speed and can use established programming languages like C.

the Java on a Chip Jini is a really cool device but it is horribly overpriced for what it is, when the Dev kit costs almost $300.00 and the Jini board it's self is $100.00 in single quantities nobody will touch it, and that is exactly what happened.

if Microsoft wants this visual Basic chip to even try to make a dent in the embedded PCI world their pricing had better be on par with Microchips and Atmel's offerings. at $7.00 to $20.00 per chip single quantities for something equiliviant in that processing speed and power and storage.

the 4Meg of flash is insanely large for an embedded processor, are they looking to the future or is this typical Microsoft and that is how huge your executible+libs is going to end up?

Re:Stupid ramblings

[zr-rifle]

> But does it run Linux?

The real question is "does it run Mono?"

Re:It is not a real CPU , from what I read.

[SenseiLeNoir]

Not quite correct, ALL modern CPU's are based on a type of firmware (read Microcode). Modern Athlons/Pentiums, have multiple RISC units onchip, with a translator intepreting the x86 code.

Re:Security ?

[FrYGuY101]

Question. What happened when the f00f [linuxmafia.com] flaw was discovered for the Pentium?

Yep, that's right, you had to buy another processor.

The X86 instruction set isn't somehow immune to flaws.

comparing Apples and Margarine ?

[Gopal.V]

What you pasted for JVM was the engine specs and for this thing was the CPU/Embedded specs.

The guys haven't really given out WHAT the "embedded.net" runs - looks like it's about the same as what the embedded JVM runs (not the Java "chip"). It's not a ".NET" chip first off and secondly it's almost the same as those "jvm" embedded (ie 400k sdram for what I have) in features. Multi-threading is not really multi-threading either, it is a kind of co-operative environment.

It's really not the big badass ".NET" at all , despite the name and the endorsment.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion