Has anyone using the 21065L installed VSDP++ 3.5? Any problems? Any suggestions? Is it worth the effort?
VDSP++ 3.5 & ADSP-21065L
Started by ●April 27, 2004
Reply by ●April 27, 20042004-04-27
# Steve Holle> Has anyone using the 21065L installed VSDP++ 3.5? > > Any problems? > > Any suggestions? > > Is it worth the effort? >I had difficulty getting it to recognise the licence for my ADSP 21065L and ended up going back to VDSP++ v3.0 I don't know if 3.5 is significantly better? -- Toby asktoby.com BSOD VST & ME
Reply by ●April 27, 20042004-04-27
"Steve Holle" <sholle@link-comm.com> wrote in message news:ba83847d.0404270611.2fd0ec00@posting.google.com...> Has anyone using the 21065L installed VSDP++ 3.5? > > Any problems? > > Any suggestions? > > Is it worth the effort?I'm not sure if it is (BTW I use the 21160). The only part that is of interest to me is the ability to have the plot window refresh while I'm running the debugger. I haven't yet tried this though. I was hoping enough people would've complained for these guys to provide quick navigation of methods in C++ classes (similar to what MS Visual Studio has with their drop downs). Having to use the search function to get to the method/function in code can get pretty annoying esp. if you are used to the luxury of MSVS. I really don't know how many people are willing to trust the various new optimizers that they've introduced. Cheers Bhaskar
Reply by ●April 27, 20042004-04-27
sholle@link-comm.com (Steve Holle) wrote in news:ba83847d.0404270611.2fd0ec00@posting.google.com:> Has anyone using the 21065L installed VSDP++ 3.5? > > Any problems? > > Any suggestions? > > Is it worth the effort?We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can coexist in the same machine. You also only need two installs, one for 16 bit (21xx & Blackfin), one for 32 bit (SHARC & TigerSharc). The old license files work fine with 3.5. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
Reply by ●April 28, 20042004-04-28
> We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. > One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can > coexist in the same machine.Does this mean I can keep my current version installed and try 3.5 along side? That would be a great improvment.
Reply by ●April 28, 20042004-04-28
sholle@link-comm.com (Steve Holle) wrote in news:ba83847d.0404280611.7bef8f99@posting.google.com:>> We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. >> One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can >> coexist in the same machine. > > Does this mean I can keep my current version installed and try 3.5 > along side? That would be a great improvment. >Yes. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
Reply by ●April 28, 20042004-04-28
"Steve Holle" <sholle@link-comm.com> wrote in message news:ba83847d.0404280611.7bef8f99@posting.google.com...> > We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. > > One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can > > coexist in the same machine. > > Does this mean I can keep my current version installed and try 3.5 > along side? That would be a great improvment.They changed the .dpj compatability (again). So be warned that it will prompt you to convert the .dpj format to the new version if you open a 3.0 project using the 3.5 tools. So as long as you maintain separate projects (perhaps even directories) you should be ok. Cheers Bhaskar
Reply by ●April 29, 20042004-04-29
Bhaskar Thiagarajan wrote:> "Steve Holle" <sholle@link-comm.com> wrote in message > news:ba83847d.0404280611.7bef8f99@posting.google.com... > > > We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. > > > One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can > > > coexist in the same machine. > > > > Does this mean I can keep my current version installed and try 3.5 > > along side? That would be a great improvment. > > They changed the .dpj compatability (again). So be warned that it will > prompt you to convert the .dpj format to the new version if you open a 3.0 > project using the 3.5 tools. So as long as you maintain separate projects > (perhaps even directories) you should be ok.The 3.0 DPJ file is automatically backed up to a DPJ.BAK file when you convert to a 3.5 project - if you want to revert back to the 3.0 version, just rename the backup.
Reply by ●April 29, 20042004-04-29
> > We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. > One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can > coexist in the same machine.Hi Al. I posted this already in another thead, but I got no replies. So I'm writting it down here. I'm having problems installing VDSP++ 3.5 for 32b on Win98SE, spanish version. When it's getting almost ready, the installation process goes backwards itself, and gets self-cancelled. Do you have comments on this? I installed VDSP++ 3.5 for 16b on the same machine, and the march2004 update, all of this without any problems at all. I hope you can shed some light. Regards, JaaC> > You also only need two installs, one for 16 bit (21xx & Blackfin), one > for 32 bit (SHARC & TigerSharc). The old license files work fine with > 3.5. > > > -- > Al Clark > Danville Signal Processing, Inc. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 > > details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp > email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com > > Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
Reply by ●April 29, 20042004-04-29
what did ADI tech support say? "Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona" <jaime.aranguren@ieee.org> wrote in message news:14a86f87.0404291503.7bbdc68@posting.google.com...> > > > We had no trouble installing VDSP 3.5 on XP & 2000 machines. > > One of the big advanrages to us is that different versions of VDSP can > > coexist in the same machine. > > Hi Al. I posted this already in another thead, but I got no replies. > So I'm writting it down here. I'm having problems installing VDSP++ > 3.5 for 32b on Win98SE, spanish version. When it's getting almost > ready, the installation process goes backwards itself, and gets > self-cancelled. Do you have comments on this? I installed VDSP++ 3.5 > for 16b on the same machine, and the march2004 update, all of this > without any problems at all. > > I hope you can shed some light. > > Regards, > > JaaC > > > > > You also only need two installs, one for 16 bit (21xx & Blackfin), one > > for 32 bit (SHARC & TigerSharc). The old license files work fine with > > 3.5. > > > > > > -- > > Al Clark > > Danville Signal Processing, Inc. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 > > > > details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp > > email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com > > > > Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
