Post by thread:ATMEL AT90S1200

I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my design. He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is equivalent to the PIC16C84. I noticed his lips moving which makes me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying? answer: His lips are moving). Does anyone have experience with this part or company? How about code compatibility? I've heard they have a flash part that will be available 1Q98 that will do 200 MIPs - just kidding, Tjaart. TIA, Tim Tim, check out Steve Bolt's Web Page at http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbolt and look at the "vision" part of his robot. regards, Http://ic.mankato.mn.us/~douglas<-LINK to Wirz Electronics&Dontronics spam_OUTdouglasTakeThisOuTic.mankato.mn.us Thai ÁÕÍˆæÀè–Ì‡‹áÀ×ñÀÜÕ‹á×‹Íè .....douglasKILLspam@spam@nexus.mnic.net Snail-Mail: Douglas J.A.R.Sasse P.O.Box 1064 Mankato, Minnesota 56002-1064 U.S.A. aka- Jeffery Allen Rand 56002-1064 U.S.A.

At 10:57 AM 24/10/97 PST8, you wrote: > I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my > design. He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is > equivalent to the PIC16C84. I noticed his lips moving which makes > me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying? > answer: His lips are moving). > > Does anyone have experience with this part or company? How about > code compatibility? code compatibility: NO code memory size: 1/2 of C84, (== 600..700 PIC Words) RAM Size: 32 Words ( ie less than 36 words on C84) EEPROM Size: 64 (Same as C(F)84) Power Consumption >> PIC Speed >> PIC Internal RC, yes, External NO Stack 3 Level! against 8 in C84 Device Programming simpler than PIC (no 12 V needed) for AT90S1200 applications look http://arbasic.com/appnotes as of the salesman talk: he was lying and he was not lying- not lying: PIC16C84 is _closest_ equivalent to AT90S1200 lying: not all PIC16C84 designs fit into AT90S1200 (many do) antti http://avrbasic.com -- AVR Basic Compiler http://sistudio.com/bswfe -- Basic Stamp Windows Front End

In message <9709248777.AA877715988KILLspamCCGATE.HAC.COM>, Tim Crist <.....tjcristKILLspam.....CCGATE.HAC.COM> writes > I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my > design. He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is > equivalent to the PIC16C84. I noticed his lips moving which makes > me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying? > answer: His lips are moving). > > Does anyone have experience with this part or company? How about > code compatibility? > > I've heard they have a flash part that will be available 1Q98 that > will do 200 MIPs - just kidding, Tjaart. I've been playing about with the Atmel AT90S1200, and am very impressed. They are much RISCier than the 16F84 (which isn't really RISC at all), much faster (62.5 ns cycle time at 16 MHz and most instructions are single-cycle), have a nicer architecture and instruction set, are easier to program (Jerry Meng's excellent parallel port programmer just uses 4 diodes and is self-powered), better suited to high-level languages and cheaper. Atmel give away the development software, like Microchip. The only disadvantage is that they only have 3 levels of stack. Leon -- Leon Heller: EraseMEleonspam_OUTTakeThisOuTlfheller.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/rcm.htm for details of a low-cost reconfigurable computing module using the XC6216 FPGA

Tim Crist wrote: > > I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my > design. He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is > equivalent to the PIC16C84. I noticed his lips moving which makes > me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying? > answer: His lips are moving). > > Does anyone have experience with this part or company? How about > code compatibility? > > I've heard they have a flash part that will be available 1Q98 that It is available from July 97 It have own code /see http://www.atmel.com/ > will do 200 MIPs - just kidding, Tjaart. > > TIA, > > Tim -- Vladimir Dobrovinski, Project manager Electronics Design Ltd. P.O.Box 1213, /Tuulemae 5/, EE-0014 Tallinn, Estonia Phone: +372 2 430254 Fax: +372 2 430254

I have also just started to look at the Atmel AT90 controllers. They have a couple of 20-pin and 40-pin packages with program memory up to 8K bytes. There are no "pages" and in general the instruction sets seem to have fewer special cases than the PIC parts. All models except the 1200 have the stack in data space. Assembler/debugger is free. No info on prices yet but they seem worth following up. Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ron Kreymborg Systems Administrator Monash University CRC for Southern Hemisphere Meteorology Wellington Road Clayton, VIC 3168 Phone : 061-3-9905-9671 Australia Fax : 061-3-9905-9689 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Tim Crist wrote: {Quote hidden}> I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my > design. He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is > equivalent to the PIC16C84. I noticed his lips moving which makes > me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying? > answer: His lips are moving). > > Does anyone have experience with this part or company? How about > code compatibility? > > I've heard they have a flash part that will be available 1Q98 that > will do 200 MIPs - just kidding, Tjaart. > > TIA, > > Tim >

Hi Tim (Tim Crist), in <9709248777.AA877715988spam_OUTCCGATE.HAC.COM> on Oct 24 you wrote: > I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my > design. He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is > equivalent to the PIC16C84. I noticed his lips moving which makes > me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying? > answer: His lips are moving). > > Does anyone have experience with this part or company? How about > code compatibility? I have used both the PIC16C84 and the AT90S1200 (although only once so far). The S1200 is faster (16M instruction cycles vs 2.5M for the PIC) but not all instructions are one-cycle. The PIC is more straight forward. The S1200 has less program memory (only 512 asm commands vs 1024) which makes several uses impossible, ie storing text messages lets you run out of memory quickly. Unfortunately the S1200 can't be RC-clocked at full speed. Considering the S1200 is cheaper (only 40% of PIC price here) it is a good choice for new projects. I really like ATMEL, I used their AT89C52 and a GAL equivalent already. On the other hand there's room for improvment.