I remember somebody was looking for a picstart.
Saw this in sci.electronics and thought I'd repost it.
In sci.electronics Dave Fors said:
FOR SALE: Microchip's PICSTART-16B1 development system.
Microchip's PICSTART-16B1 development system provides design engineers a
fast, easy and very
low-cost way to begin evaluation and code developmenbt of PIC
microcontroller products. The
PICSTART-16B1 comes complete with:
assembler and simulator software
programmer board
PIC16CXX product samples
supports the full range of PIC16C54/C55/C56/C57, PIC16C71 and PIC16C8
products
90-250VAC - 50/60 Hz power supply
RS-232 cable
Assembler Manual
Simulator Manual.
System documentation includes Microchip's new Embedded Control Application
Handbook and the
Microchip Product Data Book. The PICSTART-16B1 programmer board accepts
18- and 28-lead
PIC16CXX devices. System software includes MPALC Assembler, MPSIM
Simulator and
programmer software to read and program all PIC16CXX products. MPALC is a
PC hosted
symbolic cross assembler used to convert source code into object code.
MPSIM is a very efficient
discrete event software simulator designed to imitate the operation of all
PIC16CXX
microcontrollers.
Digi-Key price $195. Your price $125 shipping within USA included.
(PICSTART never taken out
of box or used). I'm selling it because I got into computer servicing
instead of hardware design.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
later .......
carl
Henry Carl Ott N2RVQ .....carlKILLspam@spam@pipeline.com
------------------------------------------------
No wife, no horse, no spell checker.
------------------------------------------------
First off, I wanted to thank everyone who responded to my Mac Serial
interface. You're all amazing!(ly nice, at least.)
I am looking to get something QUICK!! I want a programmer that can do up
to the 40 pin devices ie the 16C64. I would really like to have a
windows programming, debugging, simulating burning package. If something
exists, please let me know. I was looking at the Atlantic Transdata or
something liket that's programmer the PGM16N
thks. ben
_____________________________________________________________________________
| benliKILLspamuclink2.berkeley.edu | .....benliKILLspam.....ocf.berkeley.edu | EraseMEbenlispam_OUTTakeThisOuTbdt.com ******|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|WEB Page under construction...coming soon to a WWW Server near you...******|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"If we don't stop him now, Bill Gates will take over the entire galaxy, he |
|already has Earth, and Mars." - Anonymous |
|___________________________________________________________________________|
>I am looking to get something QUICK!! I want a programmer that can do up
>to the 40 pin devices ie the 16C64. I would really like to have a
>windows programming, debugging, simulating burning package.
I've been quite happy with the Parallax PICPGM programmer. It's $99 for
the hobbyist pack (docs on disk, make your own cable), plus $49 for the
40 pin ZIF adapter. (You could make your own, but the ZIF socket is not
cheap.)
Your subscription to the PICLIST list (pic microcontroller discussion list) has
been accepted.
Please save this message for future reference, especially if you are not
familiar with LISTSERV. This might look like a waste of disk space now, but in
6 months you will be glad you saved this information when you realize that you
cannot remember what are the lists you are subscribed to, or what is the
command to leave the list to avoid filling up your mailbox while you are on
vacations. In fact, you should create a new mail folder for subscription
confirmation messages like this one, and for the "welcome messages" from the
list owners that you are will occasionally receive after subscribing to a new
list.
To send a message to all the people currently subscribed to the list, just send
mail to RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU. This is called "sending mail to the list",
because you send mail to a single address and LISTSERV makes copies for all the
people who have subscribed. This address (spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU) is also
called the "list address". You must never try to send any command to that
address, as it would be distributed to all the people who have subscribed. All
commands must be sent to the "LISTSERV address", TakeThisOuTLISTSERVEraseMEspam_OUTMITVMA.BITNET (or RemoveMELISTSERVTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU). It is very important to understand the difference
between the two, but fortunately it is not complicated. The LISTSERV address is
like a FAX number, and the list address is like a normal phone line. If you
make your FAX call someone's regular phone number by mistake, it will be an
unpleasant experience for him but you will probably be excused the first time.
If you do it regularly, however, he will probably get upset and send you a
nasty complaint. It is the same with mailing lists, with the difference that
you are calling hundreds or thousands of people at the same time, so a lot more
people get annoyed if you use the wrong number.
You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF PICLIST" command to LISTSERVEraseME.....MITVMA.BITNET (or EraseMELISTSERVMITVMA.MIT.EDU). You can also tell LISTSERV
how you want it to confirm the receipt of messages you send to the list. If you
do not trust the system, send a "SET PICLIST REPRO" command and LISTSERV will
send you a copy of your own messages, so that you can see that the message was
distributed and did not get damaged on the way. After a while you may find that
this is getting annoying, especially if your mail program does not tell you
that the message is from you when it informs you that new mail has arrived from
PICLIST. If you send a "SET PICLIST ACK NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will mail
you a short acknowledgement instead, which will look different in your mailbox
directory. With most mail programs you will know immediately that this is an
acknowledgement you can read later. Finally, you can turn off acknowledgements
completely with "SET PICLIST NOACK NOREPRO".
Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived. You can get a list
of the available archive files by sending an "INDEX PICLIST" command to RemoveMELISTSERVEraseMEEraseMEMITVMA.BITNET (or RemoveMELISTSERVspam_OUTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU). You can then order these
files with a "GET PICLIST LOGxxxx" command, or using LISTSERV's database search
facilities. Send an "INFO DATABASE" command for more information on the latter.
Please note that it is presently possible for other people to determine that
you are signed up to the list through the use of the "REVIEW" command, which
returns the e-mail address and name of all the subscribers. If you do not want
your name to be visible, just issue a "SET PICLIST CONCEAL" command.
Your subscription to the PICLIST list (pic microcontroller discussion list) has
been accepted.
Please save this message for future reference, especially if you are not
familiar with LISTSERV. This might look like a waste of disk space now, but in
6 months you will be glad you saved this information when you realize that you
cannot remember what are the lists you are subscribed to, or what is the
command to leave the list to avoid filling up your mailbox while you are on
vacations. In fact, you should create a new mail folder for subscription
confirmation messages like this one, and for the "welcome messages" from the
list owners that you are will occasionally receive after subscribing to a new
list.
To send a message to all the people currently subscribed to the list, just send
mail to EraseMEPICLISTEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU. This is called "sending mail to the list",
because you send mail to a single address and LISTSERV makes copies for all the
people who have subscribed. This address (@spam@PICLIST@spam@spam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU) is also
called the "list address". You must never try to send any command to that
address, as it would be distributed to all the people who have subscribed. All
commands must be sent to the "LISTSERV address", spamBeGoneLISTSERVKILLspamMITVMA.BITNET (or .....LISTSERVspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU). It is very important to understand the difference
between the two, but fortunately it is not complicated. The LISTSERV address is
like a FAX number, and the list address is like a normal phone line. If you
make your FAX call someone's regular phone number by mistake, it will be an
unpleasant experience for him but you will probably be excused the first time.
If you do it regularly, however, he will probably get upset and send you a
nasty complaint. It is the same with mailing lists, with the difference that
you are calling hundreds or thousands of people at the same time, so a lot more
people get annoyed if you use the wrong number.
You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF PICLIST" command to TakeThisOuTLISTSERV.....TakeThisOuTMITVMA.BITNET (or TakeThisOuTLISTSERVKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU). You can also tell LISTSERV
how you want it to confirm the receipt of messages you send to the list. If you
do not trust the system, send a "SET PICLIST REPRO" command and LISTSERV will
send you a copy of your own messages, so that you can see that the message was
distributed and did not get damaged on the way. After a while you may find that
this is getting annoying, especially if your mail program does not tell you
that the message is from you when it informs you that new mail has arrived from
PICLIST. If you send a "SET PICLIST ACK NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will mail
you a short acknowledgement instead, which will look different in your mailbox
directory. With most mail programs you will know immediately that this is an
acknowledgement you can read later. Finally, you can turn off acknowledgements
completely with "SET PICLIST NOACK NOREPRO".
Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived. You can get a list
of the available archive files by sending an "INDEX PICLIST" command to .....LISTSERVRemoveMEMITVMA.BITNET (or RemoveMELISTSERVspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU). You can then order these
files with a "GET PICLIST LOGxxxx" command, or using LISTSERV's database search
facilities. Send an "INFO DATABASE" command for more information on the latter.
Please note that it is presently possible for other people to determine that
you are signed up to the list through the use of the "REVIEW" command, which
returns the e-mail address and name of all the subscribers. If you do not want
your name to be visible, just issue a "SET PICLIST CONCEAL" command.
I am planning to select a PIC development system at work, primarily to
develop applications for the new 12C50X controller (for size and power
reasons). I am a little bewildered by the choices of systems
available. For instance, you can by the entry level system from
MicroChip consisting of the PICSTART-PLUS for assembler, simulator and
programmer, plus the ICE PIC in-circuit emulator for a total system
cost of under $1000. At the high end, you can by the PICMASTER
development system with the MPLAB software and the PROMATE programmer,
for a total system cost of about $3400. I did not hear a compelling
reason to spend the additional money for the higher end system from the
folks at MicroChip (perhaps because I didn't speak to the right
person), but I would guess you get something for the additional money.
Would the experienced PIC users care to offer some guidance in
selecting a development system? My personal bias is towards ease of
use rather than the absolute lowest price. Any help is appreciated.
TIA,
Jamie Burnside
====================================================
Jamie W. Burnside M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory RemoveMEjburnsideEraseMEspam_OUTll.mit.edu 244 Wood Street, Rm. D-353
Phone: 617-981-4511 Lexington, MA 02173 USA
====================================================
Jamie W. Burnside wrote:
>
> Fellow PICers,
>
> I am planning to select a PIC development system at work, primarily to
> develop applications for the new 12C50X controller (for size and power
> reasons). I am a little bewildered by the choices of systems
> available. For instance, you can by the entry level system from
> MicroChip consisting of the PICSTART-PLUS for assembler, simulator and
> programmer, plus the ICE PIC in-circuit emulator for a total system
> cost of under $1000. At the high end, you can by the PICMASTER
> development system with the MPLAB software and the PROMATE programmer,
> for a total system cost of about $3400. I did not hear a compelling
> reason to spend the additional money for the higher end system from the
> folks at MicroChip (perhaps because I didn't speak to the right
> person), but I would guess you get something for the additional money.
>
> Would the experienced PIC users care to offer some guidance in
> selecting a development system? My personal bias is towards ease of
> use rather than the absolute lowest price. Any help is appreciated.
I've used the ICEPIC and the PICMASTER. I prefer the PICMASTER though.
The PICSTART plus is a nice programmer for development.
I'm currently using MPLABC (also quite expensive) and cannot beleive I
programmed in assembly for so long!
Home-made programmers are usually a pain in the backside because you
don't (usually) get frequent softwate upgrades.
--
Friendly Regards
Tjaart van der Walt
______________________________________________________________
| Another sun-deprived R&D Engineer slaving away in a dungeon |
|WASP International GSM vehicle tracking and datacomm solutions|
| +27-(0)11-622-8686 | http://wasp.co.za |
|______________________________________________________________|
Yes, I agree. I've used RICE16, Icepic and PICMaster...
going back to the picmaster after using the other two
was when I realised that it is better. MPLAB is also
better than the software that drives RICE16 or Icepic;
when working with the RICE16 or Icepic I still do a
fair amount of work using the simulator in MPLAB before
using the Icepic/RICE16.
The RICE16 and Icepic *are* capable tools, though, each
with good points.
- Andy.
*************************************************************
Andrew David Senior Project Engineer - Software
Thanks to all who responded. Since the PICMASTER seems to have
universal approval (with the possible exception of the price ;-), I
will probably go with it. My compliments to this group for the rapid
and helpful posts.
====================================================
Jamie W. Burnside M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory jburnsidespamBeGonell.mit.edu 244 Wood Street, Rm. D-353
Phone: 617-981-4511 Lexington, MA 02173 USA
====================================================
> Thanks to all who responded. Since the PICMASTER seems to have
> universal approval (with the possible exception of the price ;-), I
> will probably go with it. My compliments to this group for the
> rapid and helpful posts.
Jamie:
I have a couple of PICMASTERs, and I believe they're the best PIC
emulators, but I can sympathize with the price issue. You might want
to take a look at the $700 ICEPIC emulators; they have minor software
problems now, but by this time next year, Microchip will probably
have them running under MPLAB.
The software integrates a source code editor, assembler, and "front panel"
for an inexpensive PIC programmer device. Full plans and firmware are
included for the programmer, which connects to the Mac serial port. I also
sell a "partial kit" that includes a printed circuit board, pre-programmed
PIC chip, and software disk, though I am happy to say that most users have
had no trouble building the programmer from scratch without the kit.
Right now, the system supports PIC16C6x/7x/8x, but not yet "data memory"
programming on the 8x chips. I will provide gradual upgrades, but my
ambitions do not extend as far as turning this into a professional-quality
development system, since good products already exist in the PC-compatible
world. I plan to expand this Web site with information on Mac-based data
acquisition hardware projects, mostly based on PIC chips, and any other
interesting projects I come up with.
--------------
Francis J. Deck, Ph.D.
Instrumentation and Process Control
Hardware and Software Design
Embedded Microcontrollers and Electronics
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> ..but your recent reply to tjaart (on that emulator and price issue) was
> about support and pricing issues, and it was pretty long, and yet didn't
> carry any substance at all (almost, and the substance it did carry didn't
> sound nice), that i was surprised that you'd write something like that
> publicly without somebody from microchip having anything more substancial
> (or positive) to say to the matter -- here, were you posted your comment.
>
My comments were to defend MPLAB-ICE, which, it seemed to me, was under-
represented. I wanted to post some missing information, pointing out why we
developed MPLAB-ICE, why we make new development systems products, why
PICMASTER is still a good emulator, and why we decided to design new
systems.
My follow-up post answered a number of technical points that have been
topics/questions here, that I can answer, including
1. NT support
2. MPLAB-ICE features
3. Opening up MPLAB as open software
Additionally, I thought some advance information on MPLAB-ICD, might be of
interest as a low-cost solution from Microchip Development Systems for
emulation.
At 12:41 AM 5/1/00 -0700, juggernut wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Does anyone can share a copy of PIC16F84 Development System? If you really
> want to help me kindly email me privately or you may attached the file .
> Helping will be highly appreciated .
Oppss.. PIC 16F84 again...Sorry if there is someone already ask this
questions.
Help me.....!!! Where i can find a simple and low cost PIC 16F84 development
system using serial communication. protocol. PC and PIC connection using
serial port (RS232).
Is there anyone can explain me above the bootloader of PIC 16F84 development
system.
>
> Hi!
>
> Oppss.. PIC 16F84 again...Sorry if there is someone already ask this
> questions.
>
> Help me.....!!! Where i can find a simple and low cost PIC 16F84 development
> system using serial communication. protocol. PC and PIC connection using
> serial port (RS232).
>
> Is there anyone can explain me above the bootloader of PIC 16F84 development
> system.
>
> Helping me will be highly apreciated.
>
> Best regards,
> -=jug=-
> ______________---0--0---________________
> |Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/juggernutz |
> |ICQ#:72615836 |
> |__________Size doesn't Matter_____________|
Kev wrote:
>
> Okay, I give up trying to build my own programmer.
>
> What is the best bang for the buck for something that will program a 16F877
> and support ICSP and perhaps ICD?
>
> Picstart?
> Rom Zap/ Pocket Programmer
> Peter Andersons package?
Kev, I give the PicStart Plus a big thumbs up.
I have home-made ICSP connectors for mine, I can
attach it to my protoboard unit, and using MPLAB
I just click the mouse and dump the new code into
the PIC on the protoboard. So I can make hardware
or software changes in a second and be testing it
in a few seconds. Check with some of the suppliers
you can often get a PSP deal for about $100 US,
and it will do almost any PIC and is upgradeable.
:o)
-Roman
>
> Okay, I give up trying to build my own programmer.
What happened? Tait style programmers are trivial to build. This post
motivated me to get off my butt and build a page describing the trivial
low voltage programmer I put together based on a thread we had here
over a year ago:
So instead of answering with a long thread I can point folks there.
>
> What is the best bang for the buck for something that will program a 16F877
> and support ICSP and perhaps ICD?
>
> Picstart?
> Rom Zap/ Pocket Programmer
> Peter Andersons package?
>
> Other?
I happen to like Wouter's wloader. Check out the link and discussion on my
page. It's a bootloader with a simple interface. No ICD but instead of
ICSP it uses any single pin you pick for the programming interface.
In any case you may still want to examine a homemade programmer simply
because if you go the ICD/bootloader route, you won't need a programmer
for little more than getting the bootloader into the chip.
> > Kev, I give the PicStart Plus a big thumbs up.
> > I have home-made ICSP connectors for mine, I can
> > attach it to my protoboard unit
>
> if using ICSP with the picstart, just make sure you keep the
> cable short
>
And don't try to power the target circuit with the Picstart!
Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level software
At 08:36 PM 7/2/01 -0400, Bob Barr wrote:
>Mike Mansheim wrote:
>
>>
>>if using ICSP with the picstart, just make sure you keep the
>>cable short
>
>How short is short enough? (More accurately, how long is too long?)
>
>Does anyone have an experienced-based recommendation as to cable type and
>maximum length? Twisted pair, flat ribbon?
6' here, of garden variety flat cable.
Worked like hell, till the latest picstart rev, then fine.
I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.
Mike Mansheim wrote:
>
> > Kev, I give the PicStart Plus a big thumbs up.
> > I have home-made ICSP connectors for mine, I can
> > attach it to my protoboard unit
>
> if using ICSP with the picstart, just make sure you keep the
> cable short
2 foot long is fine, if you run separate wires
(not ribbon or multicore). I have a few harnesses
this length and never had a problem.
-Roman
I've been a lurker on this list for some time, and I've gleaned a
lot of good tips from the responses to other people's questions. Now I'm in
a situation where I need some advice, and its a situation that doesn't seem
to come up as a topic very often. I've been working on a series of walking
robots using PIC16F84's for control, and in adding sensory systems have
arrived at the point where I seriously need to use a device with more I/O
pins. Simply ganging up more F84's just won't do. I've grown intractably
attached to the instant erasibility of the F series, and vow never to
return to windowed parts. So far, so good: just go to 16F87X's, end of
problem, right?
It would be except for the fact that I do all my development on
Apple computers using Kevin Coble's MacPIC software, a shareware assembler
with simulator that supports several popular programmer boards. Its a great
piece of work and a real bargain, but it does not support the new parts.
About a year and a half ago Kevin seemed to drop off the face of the Earth.
His website is still there, and I assume you could still download MacPIC,
but e-mails to him go unanswered. So, after this amount of time I must
conclude that upgrades of this fine program have ended and the F87X chips,
etc. will never be supported. For me this means switching to a completely
new development system, hence my e-mail to this list.
I want to solicit opinions on the most cost effective development
system for someone like myself, who:
1. Writes only in MChip assembly.
2. Would have to acquire a laptop (preferably) or a desktop system
to serve pretty much as a
dedicated PIC development platform.
3. Has no problem putting together some kind of programming board
compatible with the
assembler he winds up with.
Naturally, I don't want to shell out any more dough than I have to.
My initial thoughts are some kind of Wintel box running Windows 95 or 98,
MPLAB, and a programmer like that offered by Peter Anderson. Or would it be
better to go to Linux, gnupic, etc.? What are the system requirements for
the latest version of MPLAB? I've searched the MChip site and downloaded
the MPLAB manual, but I'm damned if I can find any reference to what I need
to have. I'm sure this all sounds very funny; I can see a certain humorous
element to it myself. Maybe this is the kind of stuff that everybody just
knows as part of the cultural heritage, so there's no need to ask. If so,
consider me as a Papua/New Guinea bush guy who just washed up in Santa
Monica and needs to buy a car. Nothing fancy, just enough to be freeway
legal and pass smog inspection. Thanks in advance for any help.
At 8:58 PM -0700 7/3/01, Jeanette Eya-Zeissig wrote:
>Hi,
....<snip>...
Hi John,
I'm in the same boat, and have come to the same conclusion.
I'm using Kevin's software with a Warp-3 programmer. It will program
the 'F8xx parts by setting it for an 'F84 part, but is not able to
get the 'F8xx parts out of LVP mode, and will only allow the 1st 1k
words to be programmed.
How about another, perhaps not so sophisticated, but, open
source enough to modify, assembler/programmer for the Mac. All you
have to do is build a very simple board with an 'F84, and learn some
HyperCard.
The file contains a documentation file with schematics for
the programmer, PIC Assembler/Programmer HyperCard stack, and
firmware listings for the 'F84. The HyperCard stack software is all
accessible if you have the HyperCard software. If you have just the
player then Francis has included a handy button that prints all the
scripts, but you won't be able to modify them,
Which will be necessary.
My thoughts are to learn enough about hypercard to modify the
configuration parts to allow for the more sophisticated configuration
options of the 'F8xx parts. The other feature built into Kevin's code
is a memory limit check. Since Francis' doesn't have this check it
doesn't need to be modified for the additional memory of the 'F8xx
parts.
Now I haven't built the programmer, and not used the software
but it all seems doable.
> It would be except for the fact that I do all my development on
>Apple computers using Kevin Coble's MacPIC software, a shareware assembler
>with simulator that supports several popular programmer boards. Its a great
>piece of work and a real bargain, but it does not support the new parts.
>About a year and a half ago Kevin seemed to drop off the face of the Earth.
>His website is still there, and I assume you could still download MacPIC,
>but e-mails to him go unanswered. So, after this amount of time I must
>conclude that upgrades of this fine program have ended and the F87X chips,
>etc. will never be supported. For me this means switching to a completely
>new development system, hence my e-mail to this list.
> I want to solicit opinions on the most cost effective development
>system for someone like myself, who:
> 1. Writes only in MChip assembly.
> 2. Would have to acquire a laptop (preferably) or a desktop system
>to serve pretty much as a
> dedicated PIC development platform.
> 3. Has no problem putting together some kind of programming board
>compatible with the
> assembler he winds up with.
> I want to solicit opinions on the most cost effective development
> system for someone like myself, who:
> 1. Writes only in MChip assembly.
> 2. Would have to acquire a laptop (preferably) or a desktop system
> to serve pretty much as a
> dedicated PIC development platform.
> 3. Has no problem putting together some kind of programming board
> compatible with the
> assembler he winds up with.
Use the MPLAB tool set from Microchip on any 32 bit Windows platform. The
Microchip software is completely free and includes the assembler, librarian,
linker, and IDE. There is other freeware out there, but this is the stuff
officially supported by Microchip, so you know it will always be updated for
new chips and the like. It also has nicely integrated support for their
programmers, in circuit debuggers, and ICEs. It's what I use for
professional PIC development, although I did have to write wrappers around
some of their tools so I could run them from my build system.
> What are the system requirements for
> the latest version of MPLAB?
It will run on just about any Windows system since the Pleistoscene.
Fortunately the next major release will finally abandon the old 16 bit
platforms so we can have 32 bit features like long file names. Even the new
version will supposedly run on any 32 bit Windows, which would be 95, 98,
ME, NT4, 2000. I have run it on NT4 and am currently running it on 2000.
********************************************************************
Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, olin@spam@embedinc.com,http://www.embedinc.com
IMNSHO, the improvement ICD gives you over burn and churn flash programming
is much greater than the difference between JW and flash.
If you have been using a good (ie: fast) simulator, you will be very
disappointed by the performance of MPSIM. Luckily, with ICD you can do much
of your debugginng on the target hardware.
Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)
> Use the MPLAB tool set from Microchip on any 32 bit Windows platform. The
> Microchip software is completely free and includes the assembler,
librarian,
> linker, and IDE. There is other freeware out there, but this is the stuff
> officially supported by Microchip, so you know it will always be updated
for
> new chips and the like. It also has nicely integrated support for their
> programmers, in circuit debuggers, and ICEs. It's what I use for
> professional PIC development, although I did have to write wrappers around
> some of their tools so I could run them from my build system.
> ********************************************************************
> Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Littleton Massachusetts
But watch out for the slug-slow simulator --- maybe that'll get better with
the 32-bit version.
Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)
Hello again Heinz,
Thanks for the response, and thank you again for that clever OPTION
register fix a couple of years ago.
>Hi John,
> I'm in the same boat, and have come to the same conclusion.
>I'm using Kevin's software with a Warp-3 programmer. It will program
>the 'F8xx parts by setting it for an 'F84 part, but is not able to
>get the 'F8xx parts out of LVP mode, and will only allow the 1st 1k
>words to be programmed.
>
> How about another, perhaps not so sophisticated, but, open
>source enough to modify, assembler/programmer for the Mac. All you
>have to do is build a very simple board with an 'F84, and learn some
>HyperCard.
>
> http://www.execpc.com/~fdeck/mac/ <- web page
>
> http://www.execpc.com/~fdeck/mac/pic203_install.sea.hqx <- file url
I've used the Deck system and built the programmer. The programmer
works great, by the way. But this kind of misses the point. Take up
hypercard, modify the Francis Deck program: why venture farther into that
tangled woodland as twilight sets in? The object is to advance the robot
project, not to regress to making the tools to advance the project. I've
already been burned by spending hundreds of hours on a robot design, only
to have the whole thing go down the drain ( mechanical design, electronics,
PIC code ) because my supplier of surplus stepper driven actuators went out
of business. NO MAS! Ditto on trying to trick MacPIC into handling the new
parts.
At 10:46 AM -0700 7/4/01, Jeanette Eya-Zeissig wrote:
,,,,<snip>...
>Thanks Olin and Bob for the info. I'm glad you gave it to me in baby
>talk. I'm not sure if the simulator in MacPIC is fast or slow since
>I have no basis for comparison. For my purposes it ran adequately on
>old 68030 machines and like a rocket on any Power PC machine.
I have to admit that I hadn't really looked at the MPLAB ICD. Now
that I have I have some questions I hope someone can help me with.
They are offering a $99 USD Debugger - ICD Simple Suite,
part# DV164002.
Would I be correct in assuming the difference between this
and MPLAB ICD, at Digi-Key part #DV164001 @ $249.76 CND (~ $167 USD)
is the lack of the demo board in the Simple Suite.
>I think I know what I'm gonna do now: play it safe and go with MPLAB.
A good choice and it will mean you don't have to mess around
with all kinds of bits and pieces here and there, and get some real
work done. I'm glad you got better advice from the old hands.
>I have to admit that I hadn't really looked at the MPLAB ICD. Now
>that I have I have some questions I hope someone can help me with.
>
> At the uChip site;
>
>http://www.microchip.com/0/tools/new/products/special/
>
> They are offering a $99 USD Debugger - ICD Simple Suite,
>part# DV164002.
>
> Would I be correct in assuming the difference between this
>and MPLAB ICD, at Digi-Key part #DV164001 @ $249.76 CND (~ $167 USD)
>is the lack of the demo board in the Simple Suite.
That's what I conclude from looking at it. It appears to be the same
ICD Module that came with my MPLAB-ICD, but instead of including the
demo board they're throwing in samples of the 16F876 and 16F877.
My opinion is the Simple Suite package is a good deal; for the extra
US$60 the demo board cost me, it hasn't been very useful: its
prototyping area is only about two square inches.
Considering the price, I'm pleased with the MPLAB-ICD. It's rather
dinky compared with the ICE2000 I use at work, but it provides the
essentials without any frills.
If you are going to be developing/debugging code for hardware that already
exists the demo board is just about useless: buy the "Simple Suite" and
include ICD connectors on your own boards instead. If you want to develop
code and try out quick hardware ideas then the demo board makes sense.
Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)
It's a shame you couldn't just cut and paste the quantities and
part numbers into Digikey's ordering system, perhaps editing out
what you have in hand, rather than having to enter each one in,
one at a time.
Best regards,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speffspamBeGone.....interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Contributions invited->The AVR-gcc FAQ is at: http://www.bluecollarlinux.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/freeicd/index.htm
Now has a Digikey fast order that may or may not do that in one click.
Minimum order amounts have been entered and can be set to zero for parts
that you already have.
Digikey is apparently out of stock on some parts so after the "fast order"
warning about those comes up you have to hit the Part Search link (look for
"If you need to find a part number to enter, click Part Search") above the
"ADD LIST" buttons and then click on "Display Order" from the bottom of that
page.
At 7:47 PM +0000 7/4/01, Dave Dilatush wrote:
>...
> > At the uChip site;
>>
> >www.microchip.com/0/tools/new/products/special/
>>
>> They are offering a $99 USD Debugger - ICD Simple Suite,
>>part# DV164002.
>>
>> Would I be correct in assuming the difference between this
>>and MPLAB ICD, at Digi-Key part #DV164001 @ $249.76 CND (~ $167 USD)
>>is the lack of the demo board in the Simple Suite.
>
>That's what I conclude from looking at it. It appears to be the same
>ICD Module that came with my MPLAB-ICD, but instead of including the
>demo board they're throwing in samples of the 16F876 and 16F877.
>
>My opinion is the Simple Suite package is a good deal; for the extra
>US$60 the demo board cost me, it hasn't been very useful: its
>prototyping area is only about two square inches.
I agree, and I suspect many others did too.
At 4:10 PM -0400 7/4/01, Bob Ammerman wrote:
>If you are going to be developing/debugging code for hardware that already
>exists the demo board is just about useless: buy the "Simple Suite" and
>include ICD connectors on your own boards instead. If you want to develop
>code and try out quick hardware ideas then the demo board makes sense.
I'm not sure I can justify the $60 extra for what the demo
board provides, so I was happy to find the Simple Suite offer.
Thanks, this is a nice collection of info. I had run across
the beyond logic site, but the other references indicate that the ICD
has really been disected.
> Naturally, I don't want to shell out any more dough than I have to.
>My initial thoughts are some kind of Wintel box running Windows 95 or 98,
>MPLAB, and a programmer like that offered by Peter Anderson. Or would it be
>better to go to Linux, gnupic, etc.? What are the system requirements for
>the latest version of MPLAB? I've searched the MChip site and downloaded
>the MPLAB manual, but I'm damned if I can find any reference to what I need
>to have. I'm sure this all sounds very funny; I can see a certain humorous
>element to it myself. Maybe this is the kind of stuff that everybody just
>knows as part of the cultural heritage, so there's no need to ask. If so,
>consider me as a Papua/New Guinea bush guy who just washed up in Santa
>Monica and needs to buy a car. Nothing fancy, just enough to be freeway
>legal and pass smog inspection. Thanks in advance for any help.
I use an old 486 with mono VGA and 32MB of ram. MPLAB + Picstart (not the plus). And I'm happy with it ;o)
>> I use an old 486 with mono VGA and 32MB of ram. MPLAB + Picstart (not the plus). And I'm happy with it ;o)
>How is the Picstart 16B going? Did you get it
>upgraded to do the other PICs yet?
Not yet, Farnell (the ONLY place I can get that pic to reprogram and use the warp-13 firmware) has a 40 days of delay for delivering me the chip, at a low price of Us$ 25. So I'm waiting for them. But it's already installed and powered, waiting for the chip ;o)
>>
>> > At the uChip site;
>>>
>> >www.microchip.com/0/tools/new/products/special/
>>>
>>> They are offering a $99 USD Debugger - ICD Simple Suite,
>>>part# DV164002.
>>>
>>> Would I be correct in assuming the difference between this
>>>and MPLAB ICD, at Digi-Key part #DV164001 @ $249.76 CND (~ $167 USD)
>>>is the lack of the demo board in the Simple Suite.
>>
>>That's what I conclude from looking at it. It appears to be the same
>>ICD Module that came with my MPLAB-ICD, but instead of including the
>>demo board they're throwing in samples of the 16F876 and 16F877.
>>
>>My opinion is the Simple Suite package is a good deal; for the extra
>>US$60 the demo board cost me, it hasn't been very useful: its
>>prototyping area is only about two square inches.
Well I bought the ICD Simple Suite, and it arrived today.
Everthing was mostly as expected, but with the Simple Suite,
both the demo board and the MPLAM ICD Header have been eliminated.
While the demo board is no great loss, it would have been nice to
have the header to plug into the MPU socket of existing projects. But
I still think it's a good deal.
The money I saved with the Simple Suite bought a nice bunch
of 'F628's :-)
Regards,
Heinz
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Zilog are offering the "eZ80 Acclaim" development system for the processor
of the same name for the equivalent of about$US80 "for a limited period".
This provides web capability (10/100 Mbps Ethernet MAC, 8 kB frame buffer,
TCP/IP stack provided). Also includes a "free" ANSI compliant C. The 8 bit
processor, which is a Z80 superset, has 256 kB Flash, 8 MB linear
addressing, 8 kB RAM and performance claimed to exceed that of any other 8
bit processor (Rabbit 3000, Motorola 332, AMD 188, HC11 etc) (has 50 Mhz
single cycle clock). EZ80F91 has JTAg interface, SPI, IIC, RTC, WDT, 2 x
UART.
Buying, or adopting, a processor on the basis of its development system can
be a great mistake, but this seems adequately capable and the "free" C and
available TCP.IP stack and the kit's MAC are attractive..
QUESTIONS:
If one wanted embedded internet capability at some stage:
- What are the alternative "foot in the water" "plug it in and go" web
capable options at anything like this price?
- What is the price?
- Why wouldn't one buy this to put on the shelf "against the day" (apart
from wasting $US80).
- Is this liable to be the price of things to come or a genuine bargain as
they claim (was $US550)
Russell McMahon
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
On Monday, Nov 17, 2003, at 21:11 US/Pacific, Russell McMahon wrote:
> Zilog are offering the "eZ80 Acclaim" development system for the
> processor
> of the same name for the equivalent of about$US80 "for a limited
> period".
It's been available at a "special price of $99" in the states for quite
a
while now (at least as far back as the last ESC. March? Zilog seems to
regularly make available heavily discounted development systems. I've
got
a couple sitting on shelves...
> Buying, or adopting, a processor on the basis of its development
> system can
> be a great mistake, but this seems adequately capable and the "free" C
> and
> available TCP.IP stack and the kit's MAC are attractive..
I listened to their talk at ESC. My sort of overall impression was "ok,
it's pretty nice, but why would anyone risk fooling around with what is
essentially a proprietary architecture and tcp stack, when for similar
prices you can get something like a dragonball, "internet appliance" x86
clone, or commodity PC that will run several commercial operatings
systems,
plus several open source operating systems?"
> QUESTIONS:
>
> If one wanted embedded internet capability at some stage:
>
> - What are the alternative "foot in the water" "plug it in and go" web
> capable options at anything like this price?
embedded linux? PalmOS? WinCE? real linux (and etc)? Real windows?
complete embedded internet products like the Rabbit semiconductor
system or
the things Scenix was pushing back in the boom days? Dedicated
hardware?
External gateways like emWare (are they still around?) And highly
tuned and
compacted software running directly on the microprocessor of your
choice?
Somewhat more traditional internet stacks running on the slightly larger
version of the processor of your choice?
> - What is the price?
Last time I looked, I was noticing that all technology types were
converging
on a price of about $100. I found this very amusing. And extensible.
Old
PC running linux? About $100. Low end palmtop? About $100. silicon
state
machine? About $100 (of course, this was supposed to go down in
quantity,
but the "1st item" cost was "about $100.") Licensed TCP stack for 8051?
About $100. Port on a tcp terminal server? About $100. Amazing...
(note
that $100 is really ridiculous for the average embedded gadget with
maybe
$20 existing parts cost.)
I think that more recently, the software stacks are winning out. once
you
get embedded SW engineers understanding enough about networking, or
network
sw geeks getting out of their 'can't we just add another 512M of
memory?'
mindset, it seems that it's not so hard to write an internet stack in
32k
or so. One of those big AVRs with even more memory should be a piece
of cake.
> - Why wouldn't one buy this to put on the shelf "against the day"
> (apart
> from wasting $US80).
Sounds good to me. I only bought the ez8 kit myself ($49, neat blinky
lights), myself. I decided that QFP100s and similar were more than I
was likely do deal with in my semi-amateur interest level in
microcontrollers, and I wasn't looking for a TCP stack.
>
> - Is this liable to be the price of things to come or a genuine
> bargain as
> they claim (was $US550)
The development kit is likely to stay pretty cheap, but perhaps not
$80. The
people charging $500 for some processor evaluation board are the ones
who
expect to recoup their costs. Most companies at the low end seem to be
recognizing that a low-cost evaluation system is more of a sales tool.
The
Zilog kits are particularly spiffy for the price, and contain things
like
C compilers and power supplies that might be missing or "limitted
versions"
from another vendor, but I doubt that you'll see them selling for $500.
BillW (all in my PERSONAL opinion, of course.)
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On Monday, Nov 17, 2003, at 21:11 US/Pacific, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> Zilog are offering the "eZ80 Acclaim" development system
> I listened to their talk at ESC. My sort of overall impression was
> "ok, it's pretty nice, but why would anyone risk fooling around with
> what is essentially a proprietary architecture and tcp stack, when
> for similar prices you can get something like a dragonball,
> "internet appliance" x86 clone, or commodity PC that will run
> several commercial operatings systems, plus several open source
> operating systems?"
An open OS? I haven't really had a chance to work with it so I guess
I shouldn't really comment. But I do have the Comer Xinu book (sort of
open?).
>
>> QUESTIONS:
>>
>> If one wanted embedded internet capability at some stage:
>>
>> - What are the alternative "foot in the water" "plug it in and go" web
>> capable options at anything like this price?
>
> embedded linux? PalmOS? WinCE? real linux (and etc)? Real
> windows? complete embedded internet products like the Rabbit
> semiconductor system or the things Scenix was pushing back in the
> boom days? Dedicated hardware? External gateways like emWare (are
> they still around?) And highly tuned and compacted software running
> directly on the microprocessor of your choice? Somewhat more
> traditional internet stacks running on the slightly larger version
> of the processor of your choice?
I just went through this for my Open Source HCS project (Home
Automation controller, see links in my sig) but take it with a grain
of salt and realize I had special needs due to a lack of resources. I
chose ECOS because it was flexible, open, allowed others to use Open
Source tools (we needed free) and was RT and small. Though I love
using Linux I'm not so sure it's the right OS for my embedded
project. Windows was definitely out of the question.
Still I love all this 'stuff'! I can get PIC's & AVR's with 10/100
interfaces (check out http://www.edtp.com) or the Rabbit (probably other's I
can't remember). Though I am having trouble with soldering pins so
close together that I can't get a hair between them (need to upgrade
my 100W iron ;-).
Yes EmWare is still around.
>
>> - What is the price?
>
>
> Last time I looked, I was noticing that all technology types were
> converging on a price of about $100.
> I think that more recently, the software stacks are winning out.
> once you get embedded SW engineers understanding enough about
> networking, or network sw geeks getting out of their 'can't we just
> add another 512M of memory?' mindset, it seems that it's not so
> hard to write an internet stack in 32k or so. One of those big AVRs
> with even more memory should be a piece of cake.
I don't think it's the stack that's the source of the problem. Once
you get going with TCP/IP it's all the other features that spoil you.
NTP, filters, web server, cli, tftp, ... etc (IPV6 ;-). In my HA
controller I'm hoping to work with telnet/CLI, NTP, tftp, and a
web server for the initial phase. I figure that starting with 16M
(once you get past 1 or 2M might as well jump to 16M) of RAM and 16M
of flash. Right now I'm starting off with 1M of static RAM.
>> - Why wouldn't one buy this to put on the shelf "against the day"
>> (apart from wasting $US80).
I bought it for nostalgia, I have a Z80 starter kit & an EM180 Z80
hardware emulator. Both still work and I can S1 dump Z80 code to make
the blinking lights display :-). I intend to put the ez80 next to it
and do the same thing.
>> - Is this liable to be the price of things to come or a genuine
>> bargain as they claim (was $US550)
>
>
> The development kit is likely to stay pretty cheap, but perhaps not
> $80. The people charging $500 for some processor evaluation board
> are the ones who expect to recoup their costs.
They used to sell them for $700! Yikes! One problem I've experienced
was that Zilog was promising embedded Linux and Open Source tools (I
really think they need these kinds of tools) but I don't think they'll
ever do it. The ez80 is a 8/16 bit processor so Linux will be tough.
But I'd still like to see the Open Source tools.
I'm very leery of XP but I have a WIN2K box to run my 'Windows' only
tools. I've heard that we're going to see more tools for Linux and I
hope it's true. I find the Linux environment much easier to work with
(I've been working with Unix for quite some time).
BTW, I don't see Linux as the only tool of the future and it's not the
answer to everything. So let's not get into that flame war. Everything
has it's place (even Windows) and each choice must be made on facts,
opinions and political winds (nasty thing I learned working in a big
company!).
On Tuesday, Nov 18, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Neil Cherry wrote:
> > for similar prices you can get something like a dragonball,
> > "internet appliance" x86 clone, or commodity PC that will run
> > several commercial operatings systems, plus several open source
> > operating systems?"
>
> An open OS? I haven't really had a chance to work with it so I guess
> I shouldn't really comment. But I do have the Comer Xinu book (sort of
> open?).
>
I mostly meant the assorted unix clones.
> I chose ECOS because it was flexible, open, allowed others to use Open
> Source tools (we needed free) and was RT and small.
Sounds like fine reasons to me.
> Though I love using Linux I'm not so sure it's the right OS for my
> embedded project. Windows was definitely out of the question.
Why? For something like a "home automation controller", you don't
necessarily need something "tiny." A brand new PC can be had for
about $300, and give you enough HW resources to run hugely inefficient
software :-) true, windows is expensive just for the OS. but you
probably already have it. linux or freedos will work fine. It's
REAL HARD to match the bang/buck of a commodity PC (and of course,
3-generation old PCs can be plucked from select trash cans...)
(available: 90Mhz Pentium I system, HDD, CD, 14inch SVGA monitor.
MSDOS6.22,
W3.1, W95 'update'. Works fine. Free. Buyer pays postage. note that
it's probably not WORTH the postage... Getting to the point where it's
not worth the space it's taking. Sigh.)
Well, i don't know if this will be of any help, but...
I work on a GPL'ed project that connects a PIC 16F877 to an ISA NIC.
The total cost of the project is much less than US$ 30,00 because you
only need a crystal, a pic and an old nic.
It implements icmp, ip, tcp, and a very simple web server that
stores pages on pic's flash memory. We're working in many improvements.
If anyone is interested in helping development, or just using, here
is the url:
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On Tuesday, Nov 18, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Neil Cherry wrote:
>> Though I love using Linux I'm not so sure it's the right OS for my
>> embedded project. Windows was definitely out of the question.
> Why? For something like a "home automation controller", you don't
> necessarily need something "tiny." A brand new PC can be had for
> about $300, and give you enough HW resources to run hugely inefficient
> software :-) true, windows is expensive just for the OS. but you
> probably already have it. Linux or freedos will work fine. It's
> REAL HARD to match the bang/buck of a commodity PC (and of course,
> 3-generation old PCs can be plucked from select trash cans...)
> (available: 90Mhz Pentium I system, HDD, CD, 14inch SVGA monitor.
> MSDOS6.22,
> W3.1, W95 'update'. Works fine. Free. Buyer pays postage. note that
> it's probably not WORTH the postage... Getting to the point where it's
> not worth the space it's taking. Sigh.)
We thought of that too, the original HCS & HCS II were ucontroller
boards that were meant to run without the PC (1985 - 1992, at the time
a very expensive device for 1 time costs). Part of the goals for this
project are to have a device that runs without a PC running 7x24, run
a long time on backup power and be as reliable as is reasonable. The
biggest problem with PC's is it moving parts tend to wear out fast.
I've gone through a lot of drives (CD's, hard drives & floppies) over
the years
Hi-
As per moving parts wearing out - there are quite a few cheap PC type
systems with flash drives, and no moving parts available now. See http://www.solarpc.com/, for example.
David
> William Chops Westfield wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Nov 18, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Neil Cherry wrote:
>
> >> Though I love using Linux I'm not so sure it's the right OS for my
> >> embedded project. Windows was definitely out of the question.
>
> > Why? For something like a "home automation controller", you don't
> > necessarily need something "tiny." A brand new PC can be had for
> > about $300, and give you enough HW resources to run hugely inefficient
> > software :-) true, windows is expensive just for the OS. but you
> > probably already have it. Linux or freedos will work fine. It's
> > REAL HARD to match the bang/buck of a commodity PC (and of course,
> > 3-generation old PCs can be plucked from select trash cans...)
> > (available: 90Mhz Pentium I system, HDD, CD, 14inch SVGA monitor.
> > MSDOS6.22,
> > W3.1, W95 'update'. Works fine. Free. Buyer pays postage. note that
> > it's probably not WORTH the postage... Getting to the point where it's
> > not worth the space it's taking. Sigh.)
>
> We thought of that too, the original HCS & HCS II were ucontroller
> boards that were meant to run without the PC (1985 - 1992, at the time
> a very expensive device for 1 time costs). Part of the goals for this
> project are to have a device that runs without a PC running 7x24, run
> a long time on backup power and be as reliable as is reasonable. The
> biggest problem with PC's is it moving parts tend to wear out fast.
> I've gone through a lot of drives (CD's, hard drives & floppies) over
> the years
>
> --
> Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry @spam@ncherrySTOPspam@spam@comcast.net
> http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ (Text only)
> http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)
> http://hcs.sourceforge.net/ (HCS II)
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
> project are to have a device that runs without a PC running 7x24, run
> a long time on backup power and be as reliable as is reasonable. The
> biggest problem with PC's is it moving parts tend to wear out fast.
> I've gone through a lot of drives (CD's, hard drives & floppies) over
> the years
How about using one of the VIA Epia motherboards and a compact flash
card as a disk? No moving parts and they are inexpensive. Sure, they're
not as fast as a high-powered system, but they can be made so they don't
need a fan! Upload/Install software via a USB drive, disconnect it, and
the system should run fine.
>>project are to have a device that runs without a PC running 7x24, run
>>a long time on backup power and be as reliable as is reasonable. The
>>biggest problem with PC's is it moving parts tend to wear out fast.
>>I've gone through a lot of drives (CD's, hard drives & floppies) over
>>the years
>
>
> How about using one of the VIA Epia motherboards and a compact flash
> card as a disk? No moving parts and they are inexpensive. Sure, they're
> not as fast as a high-powered system, but they can be made so they don't
> need a fan! Upload/Install software via a USB drive, disconnect it, and
> the system should run fine.
David & D. Jay, I wonder how long a compact flash card would last
in a PC with Windows or Linux. You'd have to limit swaps & be careful
of writes. I guess you could take advantage of a RAM fs. It would
be difficult to run something like MisterHouse to accomplish this.
I'm not saying possible.
> David & D. Jay, I wonder how long a compact flash card would last
> in a PC with Windows or Linux. You'd have to limit swaps & be careful
> of writes. I guess you could take advantage of a RAM fs. It would
> be difficult to run something like MisterHouse to accomplish this.
> I'm not saying possible.
IIRC, Linux has a file system specifically designed for solid state memory
devices that need distributed writes to prolong life. TTYL
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
> >>William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> Uhm, I wrote this:
Sorry.
> David & D. Jay, I wonder how long a compact flash card would last
> in a PC with Windows or Linux. You'd have to limit swaps & be careful
> of writes. I guess you could take advantage of a RAM fs. It would
> be difficult to run something like MisterHouse to accomplish this.
> I'm not saying possible.
There seems to be a lot of work in running Linux from embedded systems.
I believe there is a special flash filesystem to increase the longevity
of the flash.
I would use two flash cards: 1 for the read-only parts of the system,
and one for the read/write parts. To my mind that would simplify things
greatly.
> Sorry.
>
>
>>David & D. Jay, I wonder how long a compact flash card would last
>>in a PC with Windows or Linux. You'd have to limit swaps & be careful
>>of writes. I guess you could take advantage of a RAM fs. It would
>>be difficult to run something like MisterHouse to accomplish this.
>>I'm not saying possible.
>
>
> There seems to be a lot of work in running Linux from embedded systems.
>
> I believe there is a special flash filesystem to increase the longevity
> of the flash.
>
> I would use two flash cards: 1 for the read-only parts of the system,
> and one for the read/write parts. To my mind that would simplify things
> greatly.
>
> Of course, I would probably would only optimize this *after* I got a
> system working. :)
I may give the flash cards a try as I have a PC104 set here. That is
when I get time. ;-) And yes I'd do the same having a hard drive for
testing and a flash card for the final runs.
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
> >>D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
> Your software seems to have a problem with attributes.
I'm now copying it the same as it was (no deletions); I'm seeing if it's
the software or myself. I'm using "elm" if it matters.
> I may give the flash cards a try as I have a PC104 set here. That is
> when I get time. ;-) And yes I'd do the same having a hard drive for
> testing and a flash card for the final runs.
>
> Thanks for the info on the flash.
D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>
>>>>D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>
>>Your software seems to have a problem with attributes.
>
>
> I'm now copying it the same as it was (no deletions); I'm seeing if it's
> the software or myself. I'm using "elm" if it matters.
Oh, it has something to do with elm. There may be an option for adding
the correct attributes but I can't remember it.
>>I may give the flash cards a try as I have a PC104 set here. That is
>>when I get time. ;-) And yes I'd do the same having a hard drive for
>>testing and a flash card for the final runs.
>>
>>Thanks for the info on the flash.
>
>
> I like flash. No moving parts! :)
As long as I don't write it into oblivion I'm happy. Heck if I could
figure out a way to keep the drive and make it reliable (and reasonable
in cost) I'd go that route. :-)
On Wednesday, Nov 19, 2003, at 09:58 US/Pacific, D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
>> David & D. Jay, I wonder how long a compact flash card would last
>> in a PC with Windows or Linux. You'd have to limit swaps & be careful
>> of writes. I guess you could take advantage of a RAM fs. It would
>> be difficult to run something like MisterHouse to accomplish this.
>> I'm not saying possible.
>>
There are linux systems designed for things like disk repair or routers
that manage to put an awful lot of utility on a single floppy disk,
which
is uncompressed to a ramdisk where it actually runs from. Requires
something
like 16M of ram to work, total. Includes internet utils (but not a full
web browser or server.)
The implication is that you can fit an internet capable linux plus a
sizable
custom application in something like 2M of permanent storage an run it
on an
ancient PC. Shades of DOS, but a lot more modern.
Russell McMahon asked:
<snip>
>If one wanted embedded internet capability at some stage:
>
>- What are the alternative "foot in the water" "plug it in and go" web
>capable options at anything like this price?
>
>- What is the price?
>
I know of something quite promising :) (no *real* on hands experience though),
Yes that is an complete net i/f, web server, tcp/ip stack housed inside
an RJ45 jacket ! With ttl rs232 output/inouts. Amazing little critter.
From what I gathered during my survey it would be quite trvivial to
use as an serial gateway.
As per march this year 2003 I received this 'price indication':
>The prices for a single XPort is at the moment 46 euros and price for the
>developement kit is 140 euros. Prices for quantities of 1000 and upwards
>will be around 40 euros.
Which is really good IMHO, the price is not very far from an standalone NIC.
If you don't know what it is you don't want it. If the thought of owning one
still makes your pulse rate increase after all these years you probably
still don't want it :-). Would only be of interest to someone who still has
one staggering along and wants parts, or for a collector of memorabilia. In
their day these were arguably the top available system in their class.
Nowadays they are largely just more junk.
The listing is slightly tongue in cheek. Don't be put off by the original
price mentioned - just note the $1 reserve. Vendors are friends of mine and
I could get additional information should anyone be silly enough to be
interested.
Man, I bet Russell would want that...and it's in NZ!
Wait a second....
:)
Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
-Douglas Adams
> If anyone wants an olde HP 64000 development system complete with MC68000
> pod there's one for auction on
>
> www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics/Other/auction-19286316.htm
>
> If you don't know what it is you don't want it. If the thought of owning one
> still makes your pulse rate increase after all these years you probably
> still don't want it :-). Would only be of interest to someone who still has
> one staggering along and wants parts, or for a collector of memorabilia. In
> their day these were arguably the top available system in their class.
> Nowadays they are largely just more junk.
>
> The listing is slightly tongue in cheek. Don't be put off by the original
> price mentioned - just note the $1 reserve. Vendors are friends of mine and
> I could get additional information should anyone be silly enough to be
> interested.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> If anyone wants an olde HP 64000 development system complete with
> MC68000 pod there's one for auction on
I don't want it, but it does bring back memories. Those were really nice
systems, although the totally integrated stand alone approach doesn't fit
well into today's development environment.
I still have a darkroom timer controlled by a Z80 for which the code was
developed on a 64000. I guess wet silver darkrooms and 64000 development
systems have both gone the way of the dinosours together. The darkroom
timer lives on because it has a bunch of relay outputs and can be set up in
intervalometer mode, which occasionally comes in useful. If I ever needed
to modify it, I'd probably just replace the logic board with a PIC. I don't
miss all that external RAM and ROM and wire wrap construction.
*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
____________________________________________
"While this is the first time Xilinx has included Linux support on a
downloadable Webpack release, other Xilinx products have supported
Linux over the past few years. Xilinx's ISE 7.1i, released March 1,
supports 64-bit Linux.
In addition to Linux support, the Webpack 7.1i includes support for
Xilinx's Spartan-3 Generation, Virtex-4 and CoolRunner-II families.
Webpack 7.1i also includes a technology viewer that provides a
schematic view of post-synthesis netlists, a design summary view that
updates as new information becomes available and messaging filtering
capabilities for report customization.
Webpack 7.1i also includes cable server features that enable remote
configuration of devices across a network.
WebPack 7.1i is available for download from Xilinx's Web site. "
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:42:01 +1200, Russell McMahon
<spam_OUTapptechRemoveMEEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> Xilinx free development system supports Linux
>
> www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MJ2FPNHFUVMZ2QSNDBESKHA?articleID=159908000
>
> "While this is the first time Xilinx has included Linux support on a
> downloadable Webpack release, other Xilinx products have supported
> Linux over the past few years. Xilinx's ISE 7.1i, released March 1,
> supports 64-bit Linux.
Has anyone tried this with other Linux distributions?
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:42:01 +1200, Russell McMahon
<TakeThisOuTapptechRemoveME@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Xilinx free development system supports Linux
>
> www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MJ2FPNHFUVMZ2QSNDBESKHA?articleID=159908000
>
> "While this is the first time Xilinx has included Linux support on a
> downloadable Webpack release, other Xilinx products have supported
> Linux over the past few years. Xilinx's ISE 7.1i, released March 1,
> supports 64-bit Linux.
Has anyone tried this with other Linux distributions?
> Has anyone tried this with other Linux distributions?
>
> Cliff
>
Hi!
I have just installed it on Debian unstable. Had a few issues during the
install, but nothing that couldn't easily be solved. Also, the installer
did not manage to update system variables properly (Paths etc.) I
haven't gotten around to fixing that yet. It's up and running at least,
but i haven't tried to do anything useful with it yet :)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:55:13 +0200, Oyvind Tjervaag <EraseMEoyvindRemoveMEtjervaag.com> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone tried this with other Linux distributions?
> >
> > Cliff
> >
>
> Hi!
>
> I have just installed it on Debian unstable. Had a few issues during the
> install, but nothing that couldn't easily be solved. Also, the installer
> did not manage to update system variables properly (Paths etc.) I
> haven't gotten around to fixing that yet. It's up and running at least,
> but i haven't tried to do anything useful with it yet :)
I just ran the installer under Gentoo -- looks like there are some
missing fonts as the most of the text in the installer dialog is just
little boxes. Can no doubt be fixed, but have not had time to look
into it yet.
On Thursday 31 March 2005 03:24 pm, Cliff Brake wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:55:13 +0200, Oyvind Tjervaag <spamoyvind.....spamtjervaag.com>
wrote:
> > > Has anyone tried this with other Linux distributions?
> > >
> > > Cliff
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have just installed it on Debian unstable. Had a few issues during the
>
> I just ran the installer under Gentoo -- looks like there are some
Previously used the windows version with WINE.. Wanted to try the Linux
version.. Just tried it under Slackware... The installer doesn't even
popup/crash.. It seems to be caught in a loop of some sort..
> Previously used the windows version with WINE.. Wanted to try the Linux
> version.. Just tried it under Slackware... The installer doesn't even
> popup/crash.. It seems to be caught in a loop of some sort..
>
> cheers..
>
> --
> with metta,
> Shawn Tan.
Shawn,
Have you tried waiting for quite a bit? The Script has to check its own
integrity and unpack before the installer pops up..
On Thursday 31 March 2005 10:15 pm, Oyvind Tjervaag wrote:
> > Previously used the windows version with WINE.. Wanted to try the Linux
> > version.. Just tried it under Slackware... The installer doesn't even
> > popup/crash.. It seems to be caught in a loop of some sort..
>
> Have you tried waiting for quite a bit? The Script has to check its own
> integrity and unpack before the installer pops up..
Yeah, it stops after that... Doesn't show any errors/crash/start.. Just
stalls.. Sorta like it was executing NOPs... d:
---- >8 ----
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing Xilinx ISE WebPACK Installer................... <snip>
/tmp/selfgz21665/platform/lin/bin/lin
---- >8 ----
Maybe I'll email you guys offlist this weekend to check out your config..
rio.com
