My liking has no bearing on the issue. You seem unable to accept your favourite things: facts.
FACT We have no disagreement as to what a DTOS (please note the "new" name Deterministic ... which I hope offend you less) does, I know that very well from using them extensively on units where they "fit". What YOU will not understand is that my point is that the 'R' makes many totally misinterpret what a DTOS does. I have absolutely no problem using a DTOS on e.g. an ARM, but (with the possible exception of some rare cases) it harm more than help on a '51 used for the purposes this processor is intended for. Actually, were I to do something with an ARM I would probably start the design based on using a DTOS and then possibly reject it, whereas with a '51 I would go the opposite way. Have I considered a DTOS on a '51 - yes, on a few occasions, but never ended up using it due to the stress it put on the limits of this processor.

If you read my exchange with Ian yesterday, you will realize that my "objection" is mainly that the PC types that claim to do embedded automatically grab a DTOS when it is a totally wrong decision and then whine because they can not get things to work.

Erik

PS if you want to continue this discussion, please do so an the basis of, not what a DTOS does, which I know as well as the backside of my hand, but on that the name makes some think that it does things it does not do. As long as you choose to discuss my understanding of what a DTOS does instead of what I try to discuss, we will never get anywhere.