Post by thread:%Please help rookie with these two question%

> First: What beginner's book do you recommend for entry level PIC > programming for the 16F84? I found the 16F84 datasheet and MPLAB tutorial were enough for me. > Second: Is the 16F876 code-compatible with the 16F84? Just > wondering if I > should start with the '876 instead of the F84. Pretty much, most of the 16F series is practically code compatible, the only differences are in initializeation, some of them have peripherals that are ON by default (ie. analog comparators), the datasheet mentions all of this. As for which PIC you should start with I recommend the 16F628, it's cheaper then any other flash part, has alot of good stuff (such as USART, internal RC) and it has alot of I/O for it's size (16 pins can be used for input, 15 pins can be used for output). Thanks, TTYL -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

> First: What beginner's book do you recommend for entry level PIC > programming for the 16F84? The 16F84 reference manual. It tells you everything you need to know about the processor. You will also need to read the assembler manual and at least skim thru the MPLAB IDE documentation. However, the 16F84 is obsolete. The 16F628 is does more, has the same pinout, and costs less. Again, the best way to learn any of the PICs is its reference manual. Each manual is self contained. > Second: Is the 16F876 code-compatible with the 16F84? Mostly, at the source code level, but only if it is written properly. If you do boneheaded things like defining symbolic data memory locations by EQUing them to hard constants then you are asking for problems. Unfortunately many of the Microchip example code snippets do boneheaded things. Mircochip may be good at designing microcontrollers, but they don't seem to be much good at programming them. A/D and comparator modules are common causes of code incompatibilities between chips. All the chips that have analog inputs wake up with these inputs set to analog. If you want to use the pins for digital I/O, you have to explicitly disable the analog module. The 16F84 has no analog module, so code that runs fine there won't on a 16F876 if it tries to use the analog input pins as digital I/O. Of course this is easy to get around, but I have never seen a Microchip example that does so. Other common differences are in the config word and the associated features, like the oscillator setting. > Just wondering if I > should start with the '876 instead of the F84. Yes, I think you should. The 876 has more stuff, but you can mostly ignore what you're not ready to play with yet. The only exception is the A/D module, which wakes up ON. Until you are ready to play with the A/D, just don't use the analog input pins. I like starting with the '876 better because you get to see the bigger picture even though you can still use a subset like what is in the '84. This forces you to be aware of banking and paging right from the start instead getting used to bad programming practices, then having to unlearn them later. I also think the 16F876 is the best all around hobbyist (yoo hav to spel this wird rite arownd heer or yoo get arressted bie the spelling poleese) PIC. I would get few of those to get the first quantity price break. The 16F628 and the 16F877 are options if you need smaller and larger packages. ******************************************************************** Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, spam_OUTolinTakeThisOuTembedinc.com, http://www.embedinc.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:01:45PM -0500, Jim Martin wrote: > First: What beginner's book do you recommend for entry level PIC > programming for the 16F84? It's best to skip the 16F84. Microchip has pretty much succeeded in obsoleting it with the features and price of the 16F627 and 16F628 chips. It's better to start there. I don't have a book recommendation for you unfortunately. There are any number of online tutorials that'll get you started. I'm partial to Myke Predko's online stuff. You can find a couple of introductory articles here: http://www.rentron.com/Myke3.htm http://www.rentron.com/Myke5.htm There are also several dozen other PIC related articles on the site here: http://www.rentron.com/pic.htm I'd like to add a couple of comments related to the 16F84 to 16F627/8 upgrade. First is that if the application isn't time sensitive (such as an asyncronous serial interface) that the internal RC oscillator of the 16F627/8 preludes having to use an external oscillator or resonator. Next is that one must be acutely aware that one of the best new features of the 16F627/8 is the onboard hardware USART. This means that one doesn't have to implement software UARTs by hand. I find that a lot of 16F84 tutorials spend a lot of time discussing how to build software serial routines for RS-232. The next thing is that the 16F627/8 family along with the 16F87X family are low voltage programmable so very cheap and simple programmers can be utilized to get started quickly. My Trivial Low Voltage Programmer (TLVP) is a $10, afternoon project that'll get you in the game quickly. Last on my list is that for programming hardware USART the best software/tutorial going is Fr. Thomas McGahee's PICUART code. I've seen problems dowloading it from his site (http://mcgahee.freeservers.com) so I've made a copy available from my PIC site where the TLVP lives: http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys Also you can find a description os Myke's book "Programming and Customizing PICmicro Microcontrollers" on his site at http://www.myke.com where he has a online chapter for your perusal. > > Second: Is the 16F876 code-compatible with the 16F84? Just wondering if I > should start with the '876 instead of the F84. I think you can pretty much get a consensus not to start with the 16F84. Yes the 16F87X series is code compatible with the 16F84 and will port over with a very few caveats such as variable starting address and that PORTA starts in analog mode instead of digital mode. But starting with the 16F84 means playing catchup later. There's much less of a jump from the 16F62X family to the 16F87X chips. Hope this gives you some insight. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

I agree that the 16F84 is an excellent chip to begin with. It comes in a small package which fits nicely on a prototype board. It is very well supported and easy to use. Programmers can be built easily by a beginner, using very few components. Realistically, for $50 - $100 you could purchase a couple of PICs, an LCD, keypad, LED's, support components and a few good books. I would recommend Easy PIC'n and PIC'n Up the Pace. After you gain some experience you might try Myke Predko book -- it's excellent to, yet it may be too advanced for the absolute beginner. With a degree in computer science, I find some of Myke's algorithms and approaches quite clever, yet certainly not intuitive. The Easy PIC'n series doesn't attempt to optimize code size or efficiency at the expense of clarity -- however successfully manages to present many interesting projects and tutorials. That's my two cents worth. Shawn {Quote hidden}>From: Pic Dude <.....picdudeKILLspam@spam@AVN-TECH.COM> >Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> >To: .....PICLISTKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU >Subject: Re: [PIC]: Please help rookie with these two questions >Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:31:31 -0600 > >A slightly different perspective... > >As a rookie myself, I believe that the 16F84 is a great chip to >start with, because there are lots of sample projects/code out on >the web to pick things up quickly. You can just copy, compile >and test, then experiment with the code. At a few bucks each, >cost isn't much of a factor. > >And if they're becoming obsolete, then perhaps they're less >than a few bucks now? > >Get a very simple 16F84 programmer or get one that will handle >16F84 + others you think you will need. I built a simple Tait >programmer and there was a simple wiring difference to handle >the 16F872's when I started playing with those. > >Good beginning info and books... > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/begin.htm > >Cheers, >-Neil. > > >{Original Message removed}

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 03:31:31PM -0600, Pic Dude wrote: > A slightly different perspective... > > As a rookie myself, I believe that the 16F84 is a great chip to > start with, because there are lots of sample projects/code out on > the web to pick things up quickly. You can just copy, compile > and test, then experiment with the code. At a few bucks each, > cost isn't much of a factor. Two things. With a couple of very small exceptions the code works as is. Here are the exceptions: * If you're using PORTA you must turn the analog comparators off. * You must move the beginning starting address of variables because of the new special purpose registers. * Be aware that the last 16 bytes of every bank is shared. This is actually an advantage for interrupt code. > > And if they're becoming obsolete, then perhaps they're less > than a few bucks now? PICs have always had a small cost. But the 16F628 are about 60% the price of a 16F84A. > > Get a very simple 16F84 programmer or get one that will handle > 16F84 + others you think you will need. Probably not as simple as a low voltage programmer for a 16F628 or 16F877. At minimum you'll need either a split power supply or a regulator to drop the 13V to 5V. Then you'll need an additional switch to switch between 13V and 0V on MCLR. My Trivial LVP programmer is trivial for a reason. > I built a simple Tait > programmer and there was a simple wiring difference to handle > the 16F872's when I started playing with those. Agreed. In fact it's little more than a different wiring harness. Now to the 16F628's advantages: * More of every type of memory. * Built in INTRC oscillator. For blinkly led type projects, you need nothing more than the chip and the LED. No external RC, resonator, or crystal. * PWM, hardware USART, and capture compare modules. * 3 timers. Very handy. * The ability to get up to 3 extra I/O pins. Have you had the 16F84 project that would have been perfect if you could get just one extra input? Well with the 16F628 you can because MCLR, OSCIN, and OSCOUT can all be utilized as I/O. * The aforementioned ability to be low voltage programmed. * Runs 16F84 code essentially unmodified. * It's cheaper. 'nuff said. In fact the only one feature that it's missing is the ability to self program its program memory like the 16F87X series. I was a long time 16F84 user. The lack of hardware USART and timers really cramps the 16F84's style. Programmers often have to go through contorsions just to resolve simple issues where more hardware could easily resolve the problem. the 16F628 still lets beginners start off simple and small, but has the muscle to tackle bigger problems in a more straightforward fashion. The 16F84 has no case. That's why Microchip themselves are trying to price it into retirement. BAJ > > Good beginning info and books... > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/begin.htm > > Cheers, > -Neil. > > > {Original Message removed}

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0700, Shawn Mulligan wrote: > I agree that the 16F84 is an excellent chip to begin with. I disagree. > It comes in a > small package which fits nicely on a prototype board. The 16F628 comes in exactly the same package. >It is very well supported and easy to use. The 16F628 runs everything the 16F84 does with very minor modifications. > Programmers can be built easily by a beginner, > using very few components. By utilizing low voltage programming, even simpler programmers with even fewer components can be built for the 16F628. Other than the fact that the existing 16F84 codebase obviously runs unmodified on 16F84s, there is absolutely no advantage to using a 16F84 over a 16F628. A lot of times begenners tend to focus on the starting line because that's all they've seen. However anyone that sticks with it won't stay a beginner and will start to tackle more challenging projects. The additional hardware support of the 16F628 (USART, PWM, capture/compare, multiple timers, more all around memory) will assist anyone who proceed beyond the basic blinky LED type projects. And it cost less. $6 for the 16F84A-20/P, $3.88 for the 16F628-20/P on Digikey. Can anyone explain to me any advantage of the 16F84 over the 16F628 for a beginner who hasn't purchased parts yet? Other than the sole reason I listed above? I truly think it's a disservice to advocate beginners starting in a smaller box simply due to inertia. Simply put a beginner will have to learn more on a 16F84 to get over the initial hump. Hardware generally simplifies code. Less hardware requires more complex code. Hardware can asyncronously handle tasks without constant code intervention. Software often requires syncrony and polling to keep track. Then it gets complicated by the fact that the 16F84 only has one timer, one puny 8 bit timer. I advocate the better part. BAJ {Quote hidden}> Realistically, for $50 - $100 you could purchase > a couple of PICs, an LCD, keypad, LED's, support components and a few good > books. I would recommend Easy PIC'n and PIC'n Up the Pace. After you gain > some experience you might try Myke Predko book -- it's excellent to, yet it > may be too advanced for the absolute beginner. With a degree in computer > science, I find some of Myke's algorithms and approaches quite clever, yet > certainly not intuitive. The Easy PIC'n series doesn't attempt to optimize > code size or efficiency at the expense of clarity -- however successfully > manages to present many interesting projects and tutorials. That's my two > cents worth. > Shawn > > > >From: Pic Dude <EraseMEpicdudespam_OUTTakeThisOuTAVN-TECH.COM> > >Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> > >To: @spam@PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU > >Subject: Re: [PIC]: Please help rookie with these two questions > >Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:31:31 -0600 > > > >A slightly different perspective... > > > >As a rookie myself, I believe that the 16F84 is a great chip to > >start with, because there are lots of sample projects/code out on > >the web to pick things up quickly. You can just copy, compile > >and test, then experiment with the code. At a few bucks each, > >cost isn't much of a factor. > > > >And if they're becoming obsolete, then perhaps they're less > >than a few bucks now? > > > >Get a very simple 16F84 programmer or get one that will handle > >16F84 + others you think you will need. I built a simple Tait > >programmer and there was a simple wiring difference to handle > >the 16F872's when I started playing with those. > > > >Good beginning info and books... > > www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/begin.htm > > > >Cheers, > >-Neil. > > > > > >{Original Message removed}

Well, Ok then. {Quote hidden}>From: Byron A Jeff <KILLspambyronKILLspamCC.GATECH.EDU> >Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> >To: spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU >Subject: Re: [PIC]: Please help rookie with these two questions >Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:13:36 -0500 > >On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0700, Shawn Mulligan wrote: > > I agree that the 16F84 is an excellent chip to begin with. > >I disagree. > > > It comes in a > > small package which fits nicely on a prototype board. > >The 16F628 comes in exactly the same package. > > >It is very well supported and easy to use. > >The 16F628 runs everything the 16F84 does with very minor modifications. > > > Programmers can be built easily by a beginner, > > using very few components. > >By utilizing low voltage programming, even simpler programmers with even >fewer >components can be built for the 16F628. > >Other than the fact that the existing 16F84 codebase obviously runs >unmodified >on 16F84s, there is absolutely no advantage to using a 16F84 over a 16F628. > >A lot of times begenners tend to focus on the starting line because that's >all they've seen. However anyone that sticks with it won't stay a beginner >and will start to tackle more challenging projects. The additional hardware >support of the 16F628 (USART, PWM, capture/compare, multiple timers, more >all around memory) will assist anyone who proceed beyond the basic blinky >LED >type projects. > >And it cost less. $6 for the 16F84A-20/P, $3.88 for the 16F628-20/P on >Digikey. > >Can anyone explain to me any advantage of the 16F84 over the 16F628 for >a beginner who hasn't purchased parts yet? Other than the sole reason I >listed >above? > >I truly think it's a disservice to advocate beginners starting in a smaller >box simply due to inertia. Simply put a beginner will have to learn more on >a >16F84 to get over the initial hump. Hardware generally simplifies code. >Less >hardware requires more complex code. Hardware can asyncronously handle >tasks without constant code intervention. Software often requires syncrony >and polling to keep track. Then it gets complicated by the fact that the >16F84 >only has one timer, one puny 8 bit timer. > >I advocate the better part. > >BAJ > > > > Realistically, for $50 - $100 you could purchase > > a couple of PICs, an LCD, keypad, LED's, support components and a few >good > > books. I would recommend Easy PIC'n and PIC'n Up the Pace. After you >gain > > some experience you might try Myke Predko book -- it's excellent to, yet >it > > may be too advanced for the absolute beginner. With a degree in computer > > science, I find some of Myke's algorithms and approaches quite clever, >yet > > certainly not intuitive. The Easy PIC'n series doesn't attempt to >optimize > > code size or efficiency at the expense of clarity -- however >successfully > > manages to present many interesting projects and tutorials. That's my >two > > cents worth. > > Shawn > > > > > > >From: Pic Dude <TakeThisOuTpicdudeEraseMEspam_OUTAVN-TECH.COM> > > >Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> > > >To: PICLISTEraseME.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU > > >Subject: Re: [PIC]: Please help rookie with these two questions > > >Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:31:31 -0600 > > > > > >A slightly different perspective... > > > > > >As a rookie myself, I believe that the 16F84 is a great chip to > > >start with, because there are lots of sample projects/code out on > > >the web to pick things up quickly. You can just copy, compile > > >and test, then experiment with the code. At a few bucks each, > > >cost isn't much of a factor. > > > > > >And if they're becoming obsolete, then perhaps they're less > > >than a few bucks now? > > > > > >Get a very simple 16F84 programmer or get one that will handle > > >16F84 + others you think you will need. I built a simple Tait > > >programmer and there was a simple wiring difference to handle > > >the 16F872's when I started playing with those. > > > > > >Good beginning info and books... > > > www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/begin.htm > > > > > >Cheers, > > >-Neil. > > > > > > > > >{Original Message removed}

> I truly think it's a disservice to advocate beginners starting in a smaller > box simply due to inertia. Simply put a beginner will have to learn more on a > 16F84 to get over the initial hump. Hardware generally simplifies code. Less > hardware requires more complex code. Hardware can asyncronously handle > tasks without constant code intervention. Software often requires syncrony > and polling to keep track. Then it gets complicated by the fact that the 16F84 > only has one timer, one puny 8 bit timer. I agree. In fact I recommend beginners start with the 16F876 because it is a full featured part in the smallest package such parts come in. After getting done with the Blinky LED project, most people will sooner or later want an A/D, which the 16F628 doesn't have. The extra few bucks for the '876 is small even for amateurs compare to the cost of everything else, and is offset by the fact that they are less likely to need different chips in the future. I think of it this way: Start with and learn PICs using the 16F876. If you have a project where space is really tight, use the 16F628. If you need more I/O pins or more A/D channels, use the 16F877. ******************************************************************** Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, RemoveMEolinEraseMEEraseMEembedinc.com, http://www.embedinc.com -- 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

On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:48:37 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote: >> * You must move the beginning starting address of variables because of the >> new special purpose registers. > >Or better yet learn to do it right from the start and use the linker. That >way you won't care where general RAM starts, only what bank it is in. > Amen to that. There is a slight problem with that recommendation, though. The step from simple single-file absolute coding to relocatable coding looks *much* bigger than it really is. Most, if not all, beginners' tutorials are written using absolute coding. Have you ever seen good tutorial on relocatable coding? There may be a good one out there somewhere but, if there is, I've never seen it. Your .aspic templates make a great example for the more experienced programmer but may be a bit overwhelming for the person just learning how to do relocatable coding. My own 'ah-ha moment' on relocatable coding occurred when I started working with the Microchip example project for the 16C745/765 USB chips. Incredibly, up to that point, I had been doing all of my PIC coding in absolute code. Once I could see the whole process in use and got a good feel for it, using the linker turned out to be a piece of cake. Regards, Bob -- 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

> >Or better yet learn to do it right from the start and use the linker. That > >way you won't care where general RAM starts, only what bank it is in. > > Amen to that. > > There is a slight problem with that recommendation, though. The step > from simple single-file absolute coding to relocatable coding looks > *much* bigger than it really is. I don't have a good answer to that. As you said, it may look much bigger than it really is, but it's not much different from using any other linker. I think the problem is not the few additional things you need to learn to use the linker, but the fact that absolute code is even an option in the first place. As I've said before, Microchip seems to have smart EEs designing their microcontrollers, but they don't seem to have real software engineers thinking about how to use the microcontrollers and figuring out what the tools should look like. It feels like this is done by EEs that have learned to program a bit, but don't know much about software engineering. Microchip has done a huge disservice to the world of firmware by even having a non-linked mode of programming at all. They then compounded their stupidity with outright irresponsibility by writing all their examples in absolute mode. If the examples were written in relocatable mode we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Absolute mode would be a curiosity of the assembler for archaic reasons, and nobody would give it much thought. Everybody just accepts that you need to use the linker to make an executable when writing code for windows. Nobody suggests you should start out in absolute mode because it's "easier" for the beginner. And let's get another thing straight while we're at it. Using the linker doesn't make all the code "relocatable", it's only called that. I've actually been asked "how do you write an interrupt routine with relocatable code since it has to start at fixed address 4"? Using the linker only *allows* code to be relocatable, but you can still force sections of code and data to specific addresses, you just use different directives (another Microchip stupidity, there is no reason ORG couldn't have pretty much the same meaning when using the linker). > Most, if not all, beginners' tutorials are written using absolute > coding. Have you ever seen good tutorial on relocatable coding? There > may be a good one out there somewhere but, if there is, I've never > seen it. I haven't seen one either. Yet another reason not to use tutorials. There is still no substitute for sitting down and reading the damn manual! Once you've read the manual, you won't need a tutorial. It's all in there, and it's really not that hard to understand. The PIC tutorials and intro books just waste your time by slowing down the learning process at best, or teach you bad habits at worst. It seems too many people have come to expect an "xxx For Dummies" book for whatever they are trying to learn as a substitute for doing any real work to learn it. That may be OK for some subjects, but programming microcontrollers isn't for dummies, and in the end will take a little time an effort to learn. > Your .aspic templates make a great example for the more experienced > programmer but may be a bit overwhelming for the person just learning > how to do relocatable coding. I agree. They are not meant as introductory material, but I think the concepts in them should be taught early on before bad habits to the contrary are developed. ******************************************************************** Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, RemoveMEolinspam_OUTKILLspamembedinc.com, http://www.embedinc.com -- 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

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote: > > I truly think it's a disservice to advocate beginners starting in a > smaller > > box simply due to inertia. Simply put a beginner will have to learn more > on a > > 16F84 to get over the initial hump. Hardware generally simplifies code. > Less > > hardware requires more complex code. Hardware can asyncronously handle > > tasks without constant code intervention. Software often requires syncrony > > and polling to keep track. Then it gets complicated by the fact that the > 16F84 > > only has one timer, one puny 8 bit timer. > > I agree. In fact I recommend beginners start with the 16F876 because it is > a full featured part in the smallest package such parts come in. After > getting done with the Blinky LED project, most people will sooner or later > want an A/D, which the 16F628 doesn't have. The extra few bucks for the > '876 is small even for amateurs compare to the cost of everything else, and > is offset by the fact that they are less likely to need different chips in > the future. That is certainly a valid argument. In fact I use 16F877 for pretty much that reason, plus getting the extra I/O pins to boot. But cost is one of the reasons I push the 16F628. The other is the form factor just in case a beginner is using something prefabricated that's slotted for a 16F84. > > I think of it this way: Start with and learn PICs using the 16F876. If you > have a project where space is really tight, use the 16F628. If you need > more I/O pins or more A/D channels, use the 16F877. No argument from me. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

I have to disagree with the Predko book recommendation, I've been using it extensively and I have found it *rife* with errors. I just spent the last 2 hours trying to get serial port receive working, and the simple sample code on page 236 (11 lines of code) has no less than THREE errors in it. Look it up on amazon.com and read the reviews submitted by readers before you buy. The most important thing for tech books is to be CORRECT. You simply cannot trust any of the code you see in this book. 1 in 10 or more examples will not work due to typos (half the time) and logic/missing code the other half. You wind up scratching your head, getting rather frustrated that something simple doesn't work, checking stuff with a logic probe, reading microchip .pdf spec sheets, and then fixing his code. jesse Shawn Mulligan wrote: {Quote hidden}> I agree that the 16F84 is an excellent chip to begin with. It comes in a > small package which fits nicely on a prototype board. It is very well > supported and easy to use. Programmers can be built easily by a beginner, > using very few components. Realistically, for $50 - $100 you could purchase > a couple of PICs, an LCD, keypad, LED's, support components and a few good > books. I would recommend Easy PIC'n and PIC'n Up the Pace. After you gain > some experience you might try Myke Predko book -- it's excellent to, yet it > may be too advanced for the absolute beginner. With a degree in computer > science, I find some of Myke's algorithms and approaches quite clever, yet > certainly not intuitive. The Easy PIC'n series doesn't attempt to optimize > code size or efficiency at the expense of clarity -- however successfully > manages to present many interesting projects and tutorials. That's my two > cents worth. > Shawn > > >> From: Pic Dude <RemoveMEpicdudeTakeThisOuTspamAVN-TECH.COM> >> Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <EraseMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU> >> To: RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU >> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Please help rookie with these two questions >> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:31:31 -0600 >> >> A slightly different perspective... >> >> As a rookie myself, I believe that the 16F84 is a great chip to >> start with, because there are lots of sample projects/code out on >> the web to pick things up quickly. You can just copy, compile >> and test, then experiment with the code. At a few bucks each, >> cost isn't much of a factor. >> >> And if they're becoming obsolete, then perhaps they're less >> than a few bucks now? >> >> Get a very simple 16F84 programmer or get one that will handle >> 16F84 + others you think you will need. I built a simple Tait >> programmer and there was a simple wiring difference to handle >> the 16F872's when I started playing with those. >> >> Good beginning info and books... >> www.piclist.com/techref/piclist/begin.htm >> >> Cheers, >> -Neil. >> >> >> {Original Message removed}

Hi friends, ( and Jesse too ) I was tempted to criticize also mr. Predko for some ( small )mistakes founded in his book ( actually in the chapters he had amiability to show us for free in his nice site ). I am assure you is much difficult to write an error free technical book than to read it and found mistakes, right now I'm in the same posture as a writer is... So please, don't blame too much someone who has written an 1200 pages technically book, with programs, PIC programators, basic compilers and so on. My bitterness is just I can't read this book from the begining to the end. best regards, Vasile Surducan, senior researcher INCDTIM Romania http://www.geocities.com/vsurducan On Tue, 7 May 2002, myke predko wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi Jesse, > > Sorry, I've been lurking a bit (lots of other things going on). > > The first printing of "Programming and Customizing PICmicro(R) > Microcontrollers" 2nd edition did have a lot of errors due to problems with > the editing process. All the problems should have been resolved with the > current printings of the book. > > I'm curious to know what are the three errors in the code on page 236? I am > aware of one (a typo, "TCSTA" instead of "RCSTA" on the 7th line), but I > don't know about the other two. > > myke > {Original Message removed}