PICing it or How I learned to love Microcontrollers

[philba]

great question, terri. I'll start another thread so it doesn't get lost in the debate. It'll take few mins...<p>[ January 23, 2005: Message edited by: philba ]</p>

[terri]

Yes, you were wise to set up another thread. Thanks.<p>"The old fool thinks nothing new is good. The young fool thinks nothing old is good."<p>[ January 23, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>

[Chris Smith]

The old fools, look before they leap. <p>The young fools, leap before they look.

[Enzo]

While there are those Luddites who resist change at all costs, perhaps including myself, that is not always the hurdle. I would agree that knee jerk dismissal of later technology is a problem and can be addressed. But since it inspired in some way this thread, let me say something about the quote of my earlier post elsewhere.<p>It was indeed the first mention of PICs in that thread because it was used as an example of not directly answering someones question, it was not about PICs. And indeed my post did not denigrate PICs in any way, did not reject them, and even said they were likely more practical or better solutions to problems at hand. There was no objection to PICs, only an objection to leaving questions unanswered.<p>To bring it to this thread, what if someone asked the best way to get a PIC to so something, and some engineer replied that an ASIC would be far better, and throw out that PIC? He may be right, but that does nothing for the kid with a PIC board and a couple parts on his bench. That was my concern.<p>SO, to I've heard this before, I plead not guilty.<p>Beyond my personal concerns, you make many good points. Some people don't want to learn something new, some folks like the status quo. On the other hand, sometimes it is a matter of practicality.<p>If one makes little controlling circuits all the time, then one ought to get with it and have the evaluation boards and development tools. If one does largely other things and once every year or two need to knock out a little logic something using three or four TTL or CMOS loguc ICs, then getting set up, learning the system and them knocking it out is less efficient.<p>A few years back, they handed me a little logic assignment for something to respond in a selectable manner to an input but only occasionally at random times. I did the real world interface and handed it off to someone for uC. The board would have been silly doing it in random logic. On the othre hand, a small controller card for a motor in a dispensor was a three chip and out. Going into a product shipping around the country, this could be maintained with common parts. Then again that one was done in my hotel room one night. I had to make the thing from Radio Shack parts by the next morning.

[Chris Smith]

Some praise or reject the PIC craze as a answer to everything?<p>Personally I see it at a “beta design” stage on the way to greatness.<p> Right now, the child’s diapers stinks, and Im allergic to changing them. <p>The PIC will proceed in its evolution much like Dos turned in to Windows, but the cheering section here is a little zealous when they pretend it’s the opiate for all our ills? <p>It will be, if it lives. <p>In the mean time, its just another novel infant with a load hanging out its back side.

[Sterling Martin]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PICs have been around for about 15 years. Hardly a baby. But then I doubt anything I could say will change your mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<p> 15 years! I would like to take an off the wall shot at estimating an electronics' life span. A ratio like people vs. dogs, which is 1:7. I have seen somewhere that the halflife of electronics is 5 years. In 5 years, half the stuff learned is going to be obsolete. Taking an amatuer shot at it I would guess that the ratio for people vs. electronics would be 1:100. Therefore, using my warped logic , uc's are 1,500 years old! Even using conventional logic, 15 years is a very, very long time for electronics. The only reason TTL has lasted as long as it has, is because it is so basic, and therefore not as subject to obsoletion. My theory is that the more basic a component is, the longer it will last before obsoletion. A uc is far more complex than a TTL chip, and is therefore so much more subject to obsoletion, and they are not only hanging on after 1,500 years, but they are thriving! Awesome indeed!

[Bernius1]

I remember the 8080A at Radio Schlock for $19.99 (circa 1980 !). Since then , the evolution continues, & It's only in recent years that I've seen PIC's with EEprom onboard, and 1-Meg flash memories in 8-pin DIP's. So, I've waited 'til now, when I'm past the point of having to un-learn the obsolete.

[John Brown]

I don't know where this 15 years figure comes from.
I have a 1982 data book from General Instruments which contains PICs. They were originally made by GI before Microchip existed.
Anyway, I make that more like 22 years.
Not that Chris Smith will care one way or the other!

[bsparky]

I'm with Terri, I would like to try using PIC's have been using Stamps for awile now, but PIC's are so much cheaper. Have been alittle confused, the PIC programers I downloaded just download the program to the PIC. Where can I get a cheap program to write the code and does it come with the compiler or is that a seperate program? Have been looking for a package that had everything that would not brake the bank.

[Mike6158]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by bsparky:
I'm with Terri, I would like to try using PIC's have been using Stamps for awile now, but PIC's are so much cheaper. Have been alittle confused, the PIC programers I downloaded just download the program to the PIC. Where can I get a cheap program to write the code and does it come with the compiler or is that a seperate program? Have been looking for a package that had everything that would not brake the bank.<hr></blockquote><p>Depends on what language that you want to use. A good C compiler is expensive. An archaic DOS based C compiler whose name shall be left out is ridiculously over priced and it's clunky to boot. PIC Basic is pretty cool. I bought PIC Basic Pro and I like it. Assembly is the cheapest. $0.00 investment since Microchip gives theirs away. Others probably do too but what little I know is about Microchip's products.<p>Just a thought on the topic of posting (not directed at you or anyone in particular). In a forum like this, if you point a negative remark at someone by using their name or handle or whatever it can get things moved into a personal realm pretty quickly. This is not a "personal interface" so that can bring things to a boil in a hurry. It's best to not take other people's opinions personally and to not directly attack their opinion if possible. Civility is not that difficult to maintain... (trust me, I've shown my azz more than once on web forums in the distant past so just remember... it's just the internet and the internet isn't real )

[philba]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by NE5U:
...
Just a thought on the topic of posting (not directed at you or anyone in particular). In a forum like this, if you point a negative remark at someone by using their name or handle or whatever it can get things moved into a personal realm pretty quickly. ...
<hr></blockquote><p>SAGE ADVICE! <p>On other posts. <p>OK, John ya got me! I winged the 15 years thing. I knew they had been around for at least that long but was too lazy to go and get exact info. So I put a conservative number. <hangs head in shame but grins...><p>If C is your prefered language then you should take a look at the Atmel AVR uC family. There is a free C compiler for the AVR (though it takes a little spit-n-elbow grease). AVR is a little easier on the assmebler crowd as well since it has fewer gotchas.

[philba]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chris Smith:
"That's a good one! Lets see, a big old eprom (and a programmer) with a sequencer, timing logic for the display and some TTL to figure out where the specific strings start vs a single 18 pin package (for about $2.50). I bet you couldn't even come close to a microcontroller for that application. Heck you'd be halfway to inventing a uC at that point. Sorry, Chris, that dog don't hunt."<p>I guess some are better at design work, than others? And some take a aspirin at the drop of a hat for all that ills them.<hr></blockquote><p>some how I missed this. <p>OK Chris, put up! Here's the challenge: design a circuit that puts one of 4 messages (10 character or less) on an industry standard (HD44780 or clone) LCD display based on the input from one of 4 CMOS (74HC levels are ok) inputs. You may use any method or design you wish. Please include a schematic. I have done the same with a uC. People may then judge for themselves. <p>Here's the circuit. Note that I included headers for the inputs and LCD. Also, I included a crystal and caps but those could be omitted by running off the internal oscillator. I included a 10K trimmer for the contrast adjust on the LCD. The PIC costs $2.24 from glitchbuster. crystal + caps is $.59 from same source. The trimmer is $0.79 but can be gotten much cheaper elsewhere. C3 is a bypass cap - one could probably omit it but I like to bypass all my logic chips.
<p>anyway, I look forward to seeing your design.<p>Phil<p>[ January 24, 2005: Message edited by: philba ]</p>

[bsparky]

Sorry if I offended any one, when I said I was with Terri that was about his first post about what to use and get to program PIC's Will try not to use name next time. <p>This forum is excellant. Very knowlegable bunch of people. :p

[Chris Smith]

Sorry, Ill let you "Pic" your nose over that one. Im sure with the proper program, it might even scratch other body parts? How Sofmoric of you to make a challenge.

[dr_when]

Chris,<p>When you misspell a word like "Sophomoric", it makes you appear to be just that.<p>Oh, and speaking of dirty diapers in your previous message... ask any programmer or engineer if "Windoze" is an advancement over DOS. I think not.