topic Re: Is CW Really this bloated? in CodeWarrior for MCU

Is CW Really this bloated?

Curt — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:53:06 GMT

I have an RS08 evaluation board coming, and thought I'd get a jump on things by downloading the software from Freescale. When I try to install this package though, the setup program informs me that the software requires a 500MHz PC with 256MB of memory! Can that be right?

That's F***A***T!

The installer tells me that with less speed and memory, I should expect some degredation of performance. But then the software simply refuses to install at all!

(Well, I guess that's degraded performance)

Any work-arounds to this? Seems INCREDIBLE that it takes 256MB to support the RS08!

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

peg — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:59:08 GMT

Hi Curt,

You could always try this:

http://www.pemicro.com/products/product_viewDetails.cfm?product_id=15320086&CFID=137097&CFTOKEN=56832618

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Alban — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:59:54 GMT

Hello,

It could be one of the requirement of Microsoft Windows Installer.
As for instance it was reported you need a lot of C:\ free space, even when installing on D:\ because of .msi

Some requirements are linked to the figure of the OS.

Cheers,
Alban.

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Curt — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:36:57 GMT

Thanks for the inputs.

I guess I'll have to try loading this software on my desktop, then hack it (if I can) for use on my laptop. Ridiculous, but there you go.

The RS08 is an interesting product, but after reading irob's note here on his inability to get his S08QG's into background mode, trying to deal with broken links on the Freescale web site, and the almost Kafkaesque fatness of the Freescale support tools, it's looking like I'll soon be heading back to TI/Atmel/Silabs land.

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Curt — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:29:28 GMT

It looks like the CodeWarrior Development Studio for HC(S)08/RS08 microcontrollers

will run on a machine with less than 256MB and a 500MHz clock. It might even run in 128MB @400MHz as stated in the docs.

What it WON'T do is install under Win98, as claimed in the docs, REGARDLESS of memory size and processor speed. The installer's hardware check routine appears to be incompatible with that version of windows.

This might explain the C drive D drive problem mentioned as well.

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Curt — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:04:06 GMT

Oh... sorry for running on, but thought this might be helpful.

My work-around to the Win98 incompatibility problem was to a) load the software on a

machine running Win2000 or better (install worked fine for me in a 93MB

environment, warnings aside); b) move all the installed files to the Win98 machine;

c) launch the IDE on the Win98 system and follow the directions to re-register all of

the dlls etc..

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Alban — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:44:15 GMT

Hi Curt,

Thanks, this is indeed helpful !

We don't all have racing machines...

CrazyCat, may you please report that to the team ?

This way they could use an installation package less hungry... Even if they may be reluctant after having paid for this one

Cheers,

Alban.

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

CrasyCat — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:35:21 GMT

Hello

Thanks for the feedback.

I will report that to the team and let them check whether we can do something around that.

CrasyCat

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

CrasyCat — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:05:00 GMT

Hello

I get following answer from our product people around installation on Win98:

"As of June 2006, DevTech is discontinuing the requirement for support of Windows 98 in new CodeWarrior releases.

While we regret not being able to satisfy all customers, this OS version is not even supported by Microsoft anymore and it is not prudent to proceed along this course. We highly recommend that our customers to move to a supported Windows release."

CrasyCat

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Curt — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:40:45 GMT

I can understand ending support to Win98 -- but who knew? All of the docs. I have list Win98 as an acceptable platform in the "Host System Requirements" descriptions -- and most of us aren't mind readers.

The "While we regret not being able to satisfy all customers" line irks me a little. If Freescale had told me up front that their software doesn't work under Win98 (without jumping through a few hoops), I could have decided not to be a customer. As it is, they told me it WOULD work. They're blaming the victim here. I resent that.

That aside though -- there is a reason why people like me want to stick with Win98. Have you tried intercepting a hardware interrupt under Win2000 and up? Not a pretty picture! But if you develop hardware, and want to do something mundane like cobble up an EPP printer port interface...

Anyway... enough rant for today .

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Alban — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 03:10:10 GMT

Hi Curt,

I understand your stand fully. It's not really a rant, but rather justified remarks.

I like your very good trick to force the installation though

Companies don't all have a very nice policy about renewing computers and a lot of people still have old "tanks". (new tanks cost money).

Dear CrasyCat,

Do you know how we could feed this back to the release team so all documentation is clear about it ?

Cheers,

Alban.

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

CrasyCat — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:57:51 GMT

Hello

I drop them a note around updating the Quickstart and web page to make it clear which OS are supported or not.

CrasyCat

Re: Is CW Really this bloated?

Curt — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:53:32 GMT

In passing CrasyCat -- Freescale's Technical Learning Center CodeWarrior course also insists (as of today) that CW is Win95/Win98 compatible -- and The Softec Microsystems docs. do as well. Can you pass this along as well?

It almost seems like it might be easier just to fix the problem than try to correct all of the Freescale and vendor docs. out there...

Regards,

Curt