🚀 go-pugleaf

-----------------------------
Application message id:  TI.msg.198017
Grade of Delivery:  Normal

-----------------------------
 
In a previous article Stephen Doyle of Inmos writes:
 
> Your statement on Texas is inaccurate. It is a credit to the transputer
> (and perhaps a reflection on Texas' offerings) that there have not
> been design-in losses to Texas.
 
I have to disagree.  The number of customers who have switched from the T9000
to the C40 is quite considerable.  The number of units to date numbers in the
tens of thousands with revenue worth millions of dollars.
 
Also, the number of "third party" vendors who have included C40 support with
their Transputer support (3L, Perihelion, etc.) numbers over two dozen. Since
these companies position their products where the revenue is, it is a good
market indicator for the C40.
 
> There is still only one real transputer family and randomly sticking links on
> a processor does not make it a contender. An interpretation of the situation
> could be that even a (previously) absent T9000 is considered better than a
> real C30/C40.
 
Some people out there would agree with your opinion.  Others don't.  The market
will eventually decide.  I think the outcome will be that both products will
find their niche in the market.  Users will choose different options for
different reasons.  In some cases the two will be competing for the same
socket.  In others, the two processors will complement each other (there are
already a number of designs employing both). The main outcome, however, is that
the Transputer no longer has a monopoly in this market.
 
Regards,
Mitch Reifel
TMS320C40 Program Manager
Texas Instruments, Houston, Texas
5140840@mcimail.com