Searching \ for 'ATMEL' 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/index.htm?key=atmel
Search entire site for: 'ATMEL'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Atmel'
1998\02\06@144006 by Charles Laforge

picon face
Hi Guys

Just a quick question here.  I will research this further but I'm
curious if the Armel I2C eeprom devices use the same timming,
addressing, .... as the Microchip eeprom devices.  What I have is an
Atmel 24C128 and I wonder if the routines for the Microchip devices will
work.

Charles

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


'ATMEL'
1998\07\07@225043 by NCS Products
flavicon
face
Would anyone like to say anything nice/unkind about
Atmel AVR devices?

I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.

Atmel also has a deal for a $50 programmer/dev. kit.

1998\07\08@004025 by Leon Heller

flavicon
picon face
In message <spam_OUT3.0.32.19980707223309.0072ee28TakeThisOuTspampostoffice.worldnet.att.net>,> NCS Products <.....ncsKILLspamspam@spam@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> writes
>Would anyone like to say anything nice/unkind about
>Atmel AVR devices?
>
>I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
>similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.
>

I much prefer the 1200 to the 16F84. It's faster, has a nicer
architecture and instruction set, and can be programmed in-circuit via
the printer port with virtually no components.

Leon
--
Leon Heller: leonspamKILLspamlfheller.demon.co.uk http://www.lfheller.demon.co.uk
Amateur Radio Callsign G1HSM    Tel: +44 (0) 118 947 1424
See http://www.lfheller.demon.co.uk/dds.htm for details of a simple AD9850
DDS system. See " "/diy_dsp.htm for a simple DIY DSP ADSP-2104 system.

1998\07\08@030119 by NCS Products

flavicon
face
>>Would anyone like to say anything nice/unkind about
>>Atmel AVR devices?
>>
>>I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
>>similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.
>>
>
>I much prefer the 1200 to the 16F84. It's faster, has a nicer
>architecture and instruction set, and can be programmed in-circuit via
>the printer port with virtually no components.

The only negative thing I've heard is that the AVR parts need a brown-out
reset
circuit or eeprom data can be corrupted.  That doesn't happen with the '84.

The 4x speed improvement vs. PIC is very tempting.  I was considering using an
'84 at 12mHz for a freq. generation type app.  That would be slightly above
spec.

1998\07\08@031125 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, NCS Products wrote:

> Would anyone like to say anything nice/unkind about
> Atmel AVR devices?
>
> I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
> similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.
>
> Atmel also has a deal for a $50 programmer/dev. kit.
>
>

A more specific question: is there a high-level language (e. g. Basic, C,
Forth) compiler for them?

Imre

1998\07\08@064718 by hatfield

flavicon
face
NCS Products wrote:
>
> Would anyone like to say anything nice/unkind about
> Atmel AVR devices?
>
> I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
> similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.
>
> Atmel also has a deal for a $50 programmer/dev. kit.

I just received their programmer kit MCU00100 AT89/90 Series
Flash Microcontroller and I am impressed.

A full development board with prewired leds, pushbutton switches,
PC cable, manual, CD-ROM with data books, floppies with development
system for Windows and/or DOS in an attractive box package.

Oh, and it includes a sample MV1200 micro chip to play with.

Fred.
.....fred.hatfieldKILLspamspam.....sstar.com
New Orleans

1998\07\08@095343 by chris

flavicon
face
I know that we've been getting a lot of calls from customers who have
been using PICs that want to move to the AVR for various reasons.
In my opinion, the AVRs are very nice micros, and in many ways better
than PICs.  What I like best is that they are all FLASH devices, so
you will not have to UV erase.  Also, what has been very important to
us has been ATMELs superior third-party vendors support. Microchip
has lots to learn from them.

We've just introduced a programmer for the AVRs.  The AVR-1
programmer package includes the AVR-1 programmer, cable, power
supply, ATMEL AVRtools and our own AVR-1 programming software, and a
sample AT90S1200-16PC.  The programmer includes a 40-pin ZIF that can
be used to program 8, 20 and 40 pin AVRs.  You can also program
devices in-circuit using the supplied header on the programmer and/or
change the programming voltage for your application.

The AVR-1 Package is currently $59, while a kit version of the
AVR-1 programmer only (no cable, ps, or AT90S1200) is $35.  We also
sell the PCB and software alone for $15.

Have a look at our web page for the AVR-1:
http://www.itutech.com/avr-1.htm

The AVRs are definately worth taking a look at, especially with the
new devices ATMEL has been adding to the AVR lineup.

Chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris B. Sakkas (EraseMEchrisspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTitutech.com)  http://www.itutech.com
ITU Technologies (infospamspam_OUTitutech.com)    ftp://itutech.com
***         Your source for Microchip PIC development tools!          ***
***      PIC Programmers, emulators, compilers, books and more!       ***
***     Order Toll Free in the US! 888-4ITU-TEC (that's (888)448-8832)***

1998\07\08@110922 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
>similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.
>
>Atmel also has a deal for a $50 programmer/dev. kit.

My only experience has been on the 8515, it's a nice brick.
There's an error or two in the databook, but nothing huge.

Sim works great, I developed my first app totally in sim.

It is really a lot faster than the pic, and the vectored int makes
your ISR's a lot faster too.  I've got one app running with a 300
kHz interrupt, and the AVR's only running at 8 Mhz.

1998\07\08@111333 by Thurman, Chuck

flavicon
face
I am using their $50 development system, just bought it and it fired right
up.  I like their instruction set more better than the pic, although I can't
see how they can call it a RISC instruction set versus the 37 instructions
you have with the 16F84 which I have also been using.  I will need to do
some more programming with the AT90S1200 but I think I will enjow using
it.........chuck

{Quote hidden}

1998\07\08@122716 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>I am using their $50 development system, just bought it and it fired right
>up.  I like their instruction set more better than the pic, although I
can't
>see how they can call it a RISC instruction set versus the 37 instructions
>you have with the 16F84 which I have also been using.


Who cares.  The limiting case of RISC is NOP, and while it would be damn
fast, it wouldn't be very useful.  Marketing labels aren't worth the ink
they're
printed with.

The important thing is that the speed, features, price, and package are a
good fit with your target application. You need support from the mfgr,
and the tools should work properly.  Both uChip and Atmel satisfy me
in this regard (I hear the AVR emulator is a dog, but I've not used it)
I've used both, and they both have their places.  I like the PIC84 over
the AVR1200 and the AVR8515 over just about any other midrange
uC.

I've been putting multiple 10 pin headers on my prototypes so I can plug
the dev board right into the target hardware for each system. It's a nice
board design!

1998\07\08@122719 by myke predko

flavicon
face
Ooops, I hit "reply" and it went back to one of the people who originally
put in a note and not the whole list.

I just thought I'd add my two cents here:

First off, the 1200 should not be compared to the 16C/F84; the 16C54 is
probably a better comparison.

Actually, I consider the 1200 to be an aberration that never should have
been released; none of the differentiating features of the AVR (the three 16
bit index registers (only one is implemented and it can only access the 32
GPRs), SRAM (and the SRAM Stack) and the "LPM" (ROM Table Read Instruction)
are not implemented.  I found that I could do much more substantial
applications with a 16F54 (and the 16C84 was light-years ahead) than with
the 1200.  If you want a small pin-count AVR, go directly to the 2313.

The AVR is really designed for code development for High-Level Languages and
such is probably the best 8 bit processor architecture I've seen for it
(again, for the full AVR, not the bastardized 1200).  The three 16 bit index
registers really gives you superior control over data structures.

A nice feature of the AVR over the PIC is the use of separate interrupt
source vectors (rather than the PIC's one) which follows the 8051 lead.
And, following this lead, some interrupts will have their hardware reset
just by executing the return from interrupt instruction.

The "true" AVR (not the 1200) has an instruction pointer stack that you can
access including a "push" and "pop" instruction.  With this, you can
implement funky things like RTOSes (which you can't in the PIC).

NOT EVERY instruction executes in one instruction (clock) cycle;
Instructions can take 1, 2 or 3 cycles.  As well, the instruction set is
best described as "quirky"; not all registers can be addressed in different
instructions or different instructions can take different lengths of time
depending on the instruction that follows.

The one instruction per clock cycle is something I can take or leave (having
grown up with 8051s and 8088s I'm used to converting clock cycles to
instruction cycles to actual timings); I find a much more significant issue
comparing the PIC to the AVR is the different instruction timing; I find the
PIC much easier to time applications and this also leads to the next point:

Where the AVR archictecture falls short of the PIC is in the area of
register I/O (both I/O pin registers and other "SFR").  The AVR is designed
with three memory spaces (GPR, SFR and SRAM).  While *some* of the GPRs are
bit addressable, none of the Special Function Registers ("SFR"), which
contain the Status Register, Interrupt control, and I/O functions, are which
means they have to be loaded into the GPR space, manipulated and then
written back.  Coupled with the different instruction timing, a PIC running
at the same speed as an AVR will definitely be able to do Parallel/Bit I/O
faster than an AVR.

The PIC really is the superior part if you're going to be programming in
assembly language.  I found that I could dispense with the instruction data
sheet very quickly as I was developing applications (especially critically
timed ones).  This is not true for the AVR.

In terms of which is better; EPROM/EEPROM(Flash)/ROM, I've come to the
conclusion that this is not a deciding factor in what is the best MCU.  Now,
for developing applications, I obviously want to have an EEPROM/Flash MCU,
but when I have something going out to customers, I want the cheapest device
possible and you can talk to Atmel that says Flash is best because you can
update your field population, Microchip that says EPROM is best because
you'll never update the parts in the field can customize the part on the
manufacturing line rather than have to buy a large number of ROMed parts and
Motorola (and others) that says ROM is best because it's always cheapest.
Pick which is best for you.

If you're going to learn about a microcontroller based on it's development
kit, then I would probably say buy the PICStart Plus even though it is $200
and the Atmel one is $50.

I was really disappointed in the AVR simulator and Assembler (especially
compared to MPLAB); it does allow you to input data (ie buttons or Stimulus
Files).  They really don't measure up to the Microchip products in term of
features.  I found the Assembler to quite feature poor as well compared to
MPASM (although this may change in the future).

Although, with UMPS now supporting the AVR, you might want to go that route
instead.

The programmer is alright, but I ended up designing my own programmer
because the $50 tool does not program parts in "Parallel mode"; this means
that the only reason why I would use a 1200 is lost; you can't enable the
internal timer and it will not do the whole Atmel line (my programmer will
also do the 20 pin 8051 parts - somebody said that the Atmel AT89Cx051 line
is virtually pin compatible with the AVR1200 (and 2313), but they don't
mention that the AT89Cx051 can't be programmed with the $50 kit).  There
doesn't seem to be an Atmel development programmer that can program the
company's entire product set.

The other thing that bugged me about the programmer is that there is no way
to turn off power to the part being programmed.  You have to pull the power
from the board to safely take the part out.  I also ended up putting on a 20
pin ZIF socket because pulling the AVR seemed to really damage the pins of
the socket (and, if you're not going to worry about the power being left on,
if you have pulling the part with a small screwdriver, you better make sure
you don't short Vcc to any of the other pins).


I've voiced these concerns before (on Kalle's Atmel list) and told that I'm
in a minority of one, but here they are for what they're worth.

myke

This week in myke's Book Room: "Point of Honor" by Maurice Medland.

http://www.myke.com/Book_Room

1998\07\08@122723 by Alex Torres

picon face
-----Original Message-----
From: NCS Products <RemoveMEncsTakeThisOuTspamWORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 6:49 AM
Subject: ATMEL


>Would anyone like to say anything nice/unkind about
>Atmel AVR devices?
>
>I've been checked out their website, and they seem to be
>similar to the 16F84, except more powerful and cheaper.
>
>Atmel also has a deal for a $50 programmer/dev. kit.

The simple AVR programmer - some wires from socket to LPT-port connector.
You can find it at my home page.

==================================
Alex Torres, Kharkov, Ukraine (exUSSR)
E-Mail: RemoveMEaltorspamTakeThisOuTgeocities.com
2:461/28 FidoNet
Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/6311

1998\07\08@134257 by Jerry Meng

flavicon
face
At 09:44 AM 7/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I am using their $50 development system, just bought it and it fired right
>up.  I like their instruction set more better than the pic, although I can't
>see how they can call it a RISC instruction set versus the 37 instructions
>you have with the 16F84 which I have also been using.  I will need to do
>some more programming with the AT90S1200 but I think I will enjow using
>it.........chuck

Hi Chuck,

Actually some instructions of AVR are the same, I mean same machine
code but different expression, like
CLR Rd = EOR Rd,Rd
SBR Rd = LDI Rd
CLC,CLI,..... = SET BIT SREG x
BREQ, ......... = BR SREG BIT x SET

So though ATMEL mentioned they have 110 instructions, exactly
instructions  by means of PIC is half or even less, maybe someday
I can find time to calculate the number :)

Jerry

1998\07\08@134303 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>The AVR is really designed for code development for High-Level Languages
and
>such is probably the best 8 bit processor architecture I've seen for it
>(again, for the full AVR, not the bastardized 1200).  The three 16 bit
index
>registers really gives you superior control over data structures.


It's a pity zilog hasn't seen the light. If the Z8 was flash, and didn't
have the
clock/8 "feature", then they'd rule the world!   Any register pair can be
a 16 bit register.  R0,R1  or R3,R4, or wherever you'd like to put it.

>A nice feature of the AVR over the PIC is the use of separate interrupt
>source vectors (rather than the PIC's one) which follows the 8051 lead.
>And, following this lead, some interrupts will have their hardware reset
>just by executing the return from interrupt instruction.


Also true in the Z8

>The "true" AVR (not the 1200) has an instruction pointer stack that you can
>access including a "push" and "pop" instruction.  With this, you can
>implement funky things like RTOSes (which you can't in the PIC).


Also true for the Z8 (Though their C1200 emulator sometimes corrupts the
stack if single stepping)

>NOT EVERY instruction executes in one instruction (clock) cycle;
>Instructions can take 1, 2 or 3 cycles.  As well, the instruction set is
>best described as "quirky"; not all registers can be addressed in different
>instructions or different instructions can take different lengths of time
>depending on the instruction that follows.


All registers are equal in the eyes of the Z8, unfortunately, the execution
is slow.. :(  Still EVERYTHING WORKS EVERYWHERE!   No wasted time
moving data to the "special place" to do something to it, and then having to
put it back.

>Coupled with the different instruction timing, a PIC running
>at the same speed as an AVR will definitely be able to do Parallel/Bit I/O
>faster than an AVR.


Hmm... I had to add NOPS to a C84 program running at 4 Mhz into a very
light load (one gate, 1/2" of track) to get the outputs working right. I
confirmed
it on the scope.  The AVR will output without NOPS at full speed.

PIC:   Set bit, NOP, Clear bit
AVR:  Read I/O, Or bit high, Output, Read I/O, And bit low, Output.

1998\07\08@160019 by Jerry Meng

flavicon
face
At 12:02 PM 7/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Coupled with the different instruction timing, a PIC running
>>at the same speed as an AVR will definitely be able to do Parallel/Bit I/O
>>faster than an AVR.
>
>
>Hmm... I had to add NOPS to a C84 program running at 4 Mhz into a very
>light load (one gate, 1/2" of track) to get the outputs working right. I
>confirmed
>it on the scope.  The AVR will output without NOPS at full speed.
>
>PIC:   Set bit, NOP, Clear bit
>AVR:  Read I/O, Or bit high, Output, Read I/O, And bit low, Output.
>

For lower 32 IO, you may use SBI&CBI instructions same to PIC
SBI IO, NOP, CBI IO  :)

Jerry

1998\07\08@225411 by Pandit Panburana

flavicon
face
  Any good source of information or ref. beside
  Atmel's data book ?

-Pandit

1998\07\09@120715 by Douglas Fast

flavicon
face
Hello,

Yes there is a C compiler available.  I have used it and it works well.  See
http://www.iar.com  IAR was contracted by Atmel to develop the C compiler for the
AVR parts.

There is also at least one basic compiler available.  The cost for a
development board, programmer, Basic Compiler is about $150 USD.  See
http://www.equinox-tech.com

Doug


{Quote hidden}

1998\07\09@124040 by Marc Heuler

flavicon
face
Hi myke (myke predko), in <EraseMEm0ytweb-001BgyCspamdiplomatic.passport.ca> on Jul 8 you wrote:

> Where the AVR archictecture falls short of the PIC is in the area of
> register I/O (both I/O pin registers and other "SFR").  The AVR is designed
> with three memory spaces (GPR, SFR and SRAM).  While *some* of the GPRs are
> bit addressable, none of the Special Function Registers ("SFR"), which
> contain the Status Register, Interrupt control, and I/O functions, are which
> means they have to be loaded into the GPR space, manipulated and then
> written back.

The lower SFR registers can be bit-manipulated with SBI/CBI and bit-tested
with SBIC/SBIS.  The IO Ports are accessable in this area.


> Coupled with the different instruction timing, a PIC running
> at the same speed as an AVR will definitely be able to do Parallel/Bit I/O
> faster than an AVR.

Reading an 8 bit IO port (IN) or writing it (OUT) takes 1 clock on AVR,
that is 25% of what the PIC needs at the same speed.

Even ORing a port with a literal is faster than on PIC:

AVR:    in      W,PORTB         ; in habit of PIC programming I named a
                            ; register "W"
       ori  W,0x12
       out  PORTB,W

                            ; -> 3 cycles -> 300ns @ 10MHz

PIC:    movlw   0x12
       iorwf        PORTB,f         ; -> 2 cycles -> 800ns @ 10MHz


..  and this ALTHOUGH the PICs advantage is IO-ports in register-adr-space!


Currently I'm using AVR for new projects most of the time.  When you have
plenty of cycles, it's so damn easy to do the impossible!

In the past, I have done a software UART on 16C84.  It was hard to hit
baudrates above 9600bps (full duplex).

On AVR I have done a 38400bps TOGETHER with a 100khz I2C slave!

Just in software and using only a 10MHz XTAL (the part is rated 16 MHz).


Just today I was programming a DPLL radio receiver.  The ISR execution time
worst case can sum up to >150 commands (syncword detection, PLL phase
adjust, and again I included a full duplex UART).  The radio and UART bit
clocks have no common factors.

On a PIC @ 10MHz, I'd reach a radio sampling rate of 17khz max
1s/(400ns*150).  However I need 79200 Hz oversampled rate for the PLL!


This project - just like most of my AVR projects - were not possible (in
software only) without AVR.  They would have required hardware UART,
external radio bit clock recovery, or other preconditioning of the input
signals.



> The PIC really is the superior part if you're going to be programming in
> assembly language.  I found that I could dispense with the instruction data
> sheet very quickly as I was developing applications (especially critically
> timed ones).  This is not true for the AVR.

I thought the same way.  But I changed my opinion after a few AVR projects.
Now I don't want to miss them anymore!  (but I keep my PICSTART+).



> I found the Assembler to quite feature poor as well compared to MPASM

How true..



> The programmer is alright, but I ended up designing my own programmer
> because the $50 tool does not program parts in "Parallel mode"; this means
> that the only reason why I would use a 1200 is lost; you can't enable the
> internal timer and it will not do the whole Atmel line (my programmer will
> also do the 20 pin 8051 parts - somebody said that the Atmel AT89Cx051 line
> is virtually pin compatible with the AVR1200 (and 2313), but they don't
> mention that the AT89Cx051 can't be programmed with the $50 kit).  There
> doesn't seem to be an Atmel development programmer that can program the
> company's entire product set.

Now you're not fair.  You mentioned you'd advise a beginner to buy a $200
PICSTART+ over the AVR package.  Yet you complain that the AVR parts are of
no use to you because you spent only $50 bucks on inferior tools.

You should get the MicroPRO from Equinox (don't confuse with MicroISP,
another product of them).  It programmes the AVR series in parallel mode
(including the RC-OSC fuse bit).  You get free updates on the web
(http://www.equinox-tech.com).  The programmer also does the ATMEL 89C family
(89C2051, 89C52, and so on).  They have a responsive email tech support.

I think I paid about 350 DM for it, that's almost $200 US.

When you spend that much on PIC, then do so on AVR, too (or don't complain
about inferior tools).

1998\07\09@163253 by Marc Heuler

flavicon
face
Hi David (David VanHorn), in <013301bdaa92$313d73e0$6cf135ce@xenu> on Jul 8 you
wrote:

> PIC:   Set bit, NOP, Clear bit
> AVR:  Read I/O, Or bit high, Output, Read I/O, And bit low, Output.

PIC:    bsf     PORTB,4
       nop
       bcf     PORTB,4         ; -> 800ns pulse on scope (10MHz)


AVR:    sbi     PORTB,PB4
       nop
       cbi     PORTB,PB4       ; -> 300ns pulse on scope (10MHz)


BTW, the PIC function destroyed the output latch of input pins (most of us
stumbled on this when first doing I2C).

The AVR function didn't.

Any questions?

1998\07\09@173614 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>> PIC:   Set bit, NOP, Clear bit
>> AVR:  Read I/O, Or bit high, Output, Read I/O, And bit low, Output.
>
>PIC:    bsf     PORTB,4
>        nop
>        bcf     PORTB,4         ; -> 800ns pulse on scope (10MHz)
>
>
>AVR:    sbi     PORTB,PB4
>        nop
>        cbi     PORTB,PB4       ; -> 300ns pulse on scope (10MHz)

Sorry, I forgot, I haven't played with that code in a while.

>
>BTW, the PIC function destroyed the output latch of input pins (most of us
>stumbled on this when first doing I2C).
>
>The AVR function didn't.
>
>Any questions?


I didn't need any NOP on the AVR parts, I can bit-twiddle as fast as I like
without problems.  The PIC didn't always output properly when I didn't use
the NOP.  In both cases, I didn't care about that bit's previous state, I
was
explicitly sending bit sequences in straightline code.

Without the NOP, (which isn't needed in the AVR) it's 4X faster at raw bit
I/O at any given clock.

1998\07\12@191302 by myke predko

flavicon
face
Hi Marc,

>Hi myke (myke predko), in <RemoveMEm0ytweb-001BgyCEraseMEspamEraseMEdiplomatic.passport.ca> on Jul 8
you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Yes, you're correct (I haven't played with an AVR for about a year).  I was
really thinking that these instructions cannot access SREG, the interrupt
control and mask registers (GIFR & GIMSK).  Sorry about that.

<SNIP Timing discussion>

>In the past, I have done a software UART on 16C84.  It was hard to hit
>baudrates above 9600bps (full duplex).

What algorithm are you using for the PIC?

<SNIP>

{Quote hidden}

You're missing the point; I was trying to say that by buying the $200 PSP
you can program the entire Microchip line and access all the device
features.  With the $50 kit, you can do serial programming on the AVR (none
of the 8051 compatible parts) and you cannot access many of the features
that are only accessible by parallel programming AND unless you turn off the
power to the part you run the risk of damaging the part and/or the programmer.

>You should get the MicroPRO from Equinox (don't confuse with MicroISP,
>another product of them).  It programmes the AVR series in parallel mode
>(including the RC-OSC fuse bit).  You get free updates on the web
>(http://www.equinox-tech.com).  The programmer also does the ATMEL 89C family
>(89C2051, 89C52, and so on).  They have a responsive email tech support.

Great; but what good is it to somebody who's just learning about the AVR?  I
don't see <i>anywhere</i> in Atmel's documentation about these deficiencies
and why isn't there a pointer to the issue of hot plugging?  At the very
least, there should be a statement either on the programming window or in
the documentation saying:

HEY DUMMY!!!  UNPLUG THE PROGRAMMER BEFORE REMOVING THE PART!!!

I put a ZIF on the socket, which reduces the chance for a short.

>I think I paid about 350 DM for it, that's almost $200 US.
>
>When you spend that much on PIC, then do so on AVR, too (or don't complain
>about inferior tools).

I'm comparing the quality of the tools available from the manufacturers.
The price isn't the issue; the issue is the Atmel tool, which is presented
by the manufacturer as all somebody new requires to start working with the
AVR, is unacceptable.

What I was trying to say was the $200 PSP should be considered superior over
the Atmel programmer because the Atmel tool cannot program all the parts in
the Atmel line, does not access all the features of the devices it does
program and operation, if the user isn't careful could potentially damage
the part it is programming (and itself).

myke

This week in myke's Book Room: "Point of Honor" by Maurice Medland.

http://www.myke.com/Book_Room

1998\07\14@170352 by Marc Heuler
flavicon
face
Hi myke (myke predko), in <RemoveMEm0yvVHi-001D7DCspam_OUTspamKILLspamdiplomatic.passport.ca> on Jul 12 you wrote:

> >The lower SFR registers can be bit-manipulated with SBI/CBI and bit-tested
> >with SBIC/SBIS.  The IO Ports are accessable in this area.
>
> Yes, you're correct (I haven't played with an AVR for about a year).  I was
> really thinking that these instructions cannot access SREG, the interrupt
> control and mask registers (GIFR & GIMSK).  Sorry about that.

Like you say, you can't bitmanipulate GIFR and SREG and similar.  This is a
bit of an annoyance, but the important IO Ports work fine with SBI/CBI!

> >In the past, I have done a software UART on 16C84.  It was hard to hit
> >baudrates above 9600bps (full duplex).
>
> What algorithm are you using for the PIC?

It's some time ago that I did it.  It was at 10MHz, and continously
sampling the input in TMR INT (even when no transmission was going on).  I
did oversample only x3 to have CPU time left for the main program.  A UART
that hogs the main program considerably is not a nice thing to have.
Finally I settled to 1200bps when I remember correctly.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...