Searching \ for '[PIC]: Windows 2000 and Microchip dev tools' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Windows 2000 and Microchip dev tools'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: Windows 2000 and Microchip dev tools'
2000\09\27@104944 by frmiller

flavicon
face
After the NT compatibility thread, I thought I would find
out if anyone had successfully used any of the Microchip
development tools under Windows 2000. I use MPLAB,
Picmaster, ICE2000 and Pro Mate II. The Microchip website
hints that the ICE2000 will work under Win2K but doesn't say
one way or the other for sure about the other devices. Any
success or horror stories would be appreciated.

Ryan

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
use spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu?body=SET%20PICList%20DIGEST


2000\09\27@105407 by Paul Reilly

picon face
> hints that the ICE2000 will work under Win2K but doesn't say
> one way or the other for sure about the other devices. Any

I've been using MPLAB without any problems on Win2K. I suspect the others
would be the same but don't use them

Paul

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
use .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu?body=SET%20PICList%20DIGEST


2000\09\27@112441 by Paul

flavicon
face
with the old languages they use to write there software there shouldnt be a
problem...after all when are they going to put long filename support in and
the like...or all programmers stuck in the 8.3 world of yesterday...?

{Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@113235 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
There isn't a very elegant way of supporting long file names under windows and
be able to run on windows 3.1 as well.

-Adam

Paul wrote:
>
> with the old languages they use to write there software there shouldnt be a
> problem...after all when are they going to put long filename support in and
> the like...or all programmers stuck in the 8.3 world of yesterday...?
>
> {Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@114104 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
They should check the polls to see just how few engineers are still using 3.1.
I think Tech-Tools had one out at one point, or was it Parallax?  Anyway, it was
a pitifully small number.

Andy









"M. Adam Davis" <adavisspamKILLspamUBASICS.COM> on 09/27/2000 11:31:36 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [PIC]: Windows 2000 and Microchip dev tools








There isn't a very elegant way of supporting long file names under windows and
be able to run on windows 3.1 as well.

-Adam

Paul wrote:
>
> with the old languages they use to write there software there shouldnt be a
> problem...after all when are they going to put long filename support in and
> the like...or all programmers stuck in the 8.3 world of yesterday...?
>
> {Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@114125 by Paul

flavicon
face
yes well l forgot people still use dos and 3.1

well it can be done thats why compilers can compile 16 bit and 32 bit
versions, l reckon youd find that there software couldnt handle long file
names without some major recoding whereas l dont think it should relly be an
issue..no for-thought one there behalf...dont get me wrong l use mplab every
day, thats why it annoys me, its ugly and l am sick of looking at it...a
facelift would not hurt 1 little bit...then again it wouldnt hurt me
either...hehe

{Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@115738 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Well, given that it is free (while other chip manufacturers charge hundreds or
thousands), I'm not going to worry about it too much.

And if you don't like it, you can use one of the millions of reconfigurable
editors to do what mplab does.  Use the command line assembler, GPSIM, various
programmer software, command line c compiler.  You could make whatever type of
environment you want to.

Of course, it takes time and energy, but look at it this way:  If it's not
important enough to you to take that time, then it certianly isn't worth their
time to change something which you won't even spend time on.

-Adam

Paul wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@143230 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
The 8.3 is because MPLAB is _still_ a 16-bit Windows application.

I really don't know why it hasn't been updated to Win32 by now.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)

{Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@152824 by Jilles Oldenbeuving

flavicon
face
One of the most annoying things to me are the windows. I work on a
double-monitor system.
It would be optimal to place for example the source code on screen 1 and
registers,
call stack, ICD-window, etc on screen 2. But MPLAB doesn't allow those
windows to be moved
outside it's own window. And enlargeing MPLAB so that it spans the two
monitors doesn't work.

It's so annoying to have two monitors, and no possibility to use them
optimaly! I'd say move up to
32 bit! (Not sure if it will solve my two monitor problem)

Also starting up MPLAB takes longer than that i think is necessary...


Regards,

Jilles Oldenbeuving
jillesspamspam_OUTrendo.dekooi.nl
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Bob Ammerman <@spam@RAMMERMANKILLspamspamPRODIGY.NET>
Aan: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Datum: woensdag 27 september 2000 20:35
Onderwerp: Re: [PIC]: Windows 2000 and Microchip dev tools


>The 8.3 is because MPLAB is _still_ a 16-bit Windows application.
>
>I really don't know why it hasn't been updated to Win32 by now.
>
>Bob Ammerman
>RAm Systems
>(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
>software)
>
>{Original Message removed}

2000\09\27@210653 by Olin Lathrop

flavicon
face
> There isn't a very elegant way of supporting long file names under windows
and
> be able to run on windows 3.1 as well.

Right, so loose the Windows 3.1 and DOS support.  I doubt there is any
significant amount of serious commercial development work (resulting in chip
volumes) being done on those archaic platforms.  Working well and taking
full advantage of Win NT and 2000 is far more important.


*****************************************************************
Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Devens Massachusetts
(978) 772-3129, spamBeGoneolinspamBeGonespamcognivis.com, http://www.cognivis.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
use TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu?body=SET%20PICList%20DIGEST


2000\09\28@051245 by Jamie Dainton

flavicon
face
Hello Jilles,

Wednesday, September 27, 2000, 20:10:04, you wrote:

JO> Also starting up MPLAB takes longer than that i think is necessary...

On what system. On my PIII 500 it takes just under 2 seconds with
Personal Web Server, IE5, The Bat! and Ultraedit open. What do you
class as a long time?

--
From Jamie Dainton
Thursday, September 28, 2000 09:26:47
The Bat! 1.46 Beta/5
Windows 98 4.10 2222

RemoveMEpgpspamTakeThisOuTdainton.org.uk?subject=sendKey

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu


2000\09\28@055506 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
The 32 bit MPLAB is allegedly in development, according to "a source" I have
spoken to.

Mike

> {Original Message removed}

2000\09\28@102521 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I don't wish to be rude, Olin, but you seem to be uncannily sure that your view
is correct.  I assume this means you've done market studies in all the countries
Microchip sells to?

Many companies are succesful because they use the least expensive tool (but
still efficient) for the job.  If the computer runs MPLAB on win3.1, and only
cost the company $200, then why pay another $800 or more to upgrade the hardware
just to run an OS which does nothing more than what 3.1 does for them already?

Perhaps you've not lived in other countries where the hardware and software are
not as readily had as here in the US.  I haven't lived in any other country.  I
am a programmer for a small company which markets its products worldwide.  My
programs have to run on windows 3.1 up through windows Millenium.  They also
have to deal with long and short file names, as well as double byte character
systems (primarily japanese and other asian languages) (which is a pain in the
neck when you have to communicate with a serial port device and the OS wants to
convert your binary data to double byte character data)

I don't wish to knock your opinion of where Microchip's priorities lie, but what
is keeping you from making your own development environment which would far
surpass what Microchip is giving to you for free?  You wouldn't have to do any
programming.  Just pick up one of the dozens of programmer's editors available
on the internet (most for under $30) and plug in your command line
compilers/assemblers/simulators.  Most of those editors come with code
highlighting and other features which are worth (to most people) the money they
paid, and which may never be in Microchip's software.

-Adam

Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...