![]() Last time this was discussed in detail a consensus was not reached. This, however, opens another can of worms. I agree, a new brand will give us an opportunity to specifiy some enhancements to the bus, such as the IEI/IEO issue. I also like the Classic II style as the 40-pin header profile makes the modules much easier to lever out of a backplane. 80-pin RC2014 style headers are difficult to handle. The easier removal of cards from backplanes (due to the shorter bus header) is a big plus. The bigger cards provides a bit more scope without creating non-standard card sizes. Currently the Z50Bus is relatively "clean". These issues are some of the main reasons I have produced a range of Z50Bus products. It is also responsible for all the problems people have with using the wrong header on the Pro memory modules. Having some standard form factor modules with single row and some with double row is inconsistent and ugly. * standard bus: Classic II form factor with single row, 40-pin headers * enhanced bus: standard PCB form factor with 2-row headers (full or partial second row), or They may even view it that there are two competing systems that look very similar.Īll my RC2014 style designs are now either: Sure it would differentiate official RC2014 products from others (if everyone adapts it) but I feel that may just make it confusing for new users. I'm not sure who a new branding scheme would really help. I do however make a lot of use of "designed for RC2014" and "compatible with" in my documentation and product listings. That will not change overnight.įor some time now I have avoided any use of "RC2014" on my new PCB designs due to the very issue Spencer raised. I have lots of designs, many pages of documentation, and a lot of stock of PCBs in a range of colours. Also, it will take a long time to migrate exiting designs, documentation and product listings to a new brand. This would be more confusing than the current situation. One of my concerns is that not all of us who share our designs or sell them will adopt a new brand. I'm happy to adopt a new branding if one can be agreed. The name RC80 gives all sorts of matches. One thing I like about the name RC2014 is that it is quite unique from the search engine point of view. I call my 40-pin Classic II style designs RC40 and my 80-pin backplanes BP80, but I don't make a big issue of this and don't mind changing if we can agree something else. So I'm not convinced about the name - yet. ![]() I like the name RC80, especially with the reference to 1980, but many RC2014 compatible systems use only the 40 pin bus. Not that all official RC2014 modules work with all others - that is just the nature of the modular design of a range of related systems. It seems to be more about confusion of what is an RC2014 and what is a "designed for RC2014" product with no official standing or compatibility certification. Spencer did point out that he is not really seeing a deliberate abuse of his trademark. There are so many aspects to it I don't know where to start but here are a few random thoughts. I've been giving this whole issue quite a bit of thought since Spencer raised it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |