Post by thread:Newbie intro

Hello, I don't know if you folks have a policy on this, but I thought I'd just mention that I've just joined the PIC List yesterday. I'm afraid it'll be more questions than answer from me, as I'm new to the PIC scene, and it's many years since I did any assembler programming! I've bought the PICSTART Plus programmer, installed MPLAB 4.12, and also got hold of the "Project Board 2" from Bluebird Electronics, which looks pretty good for testing out your circuits. Yesterday I wrote my first MPLAB program (press a button, light a led) to check that the system is working, and it seems fine. Some background about me: I live over in East Anglia, England, and have worked for BT as an engineer for the last 26 years. I've got a background knowledge of electronics and microprocessors, and am computer literate (I run an NT4 workstation here at home). I do some lightweight Windows programming using Delphi - sometimes know as "Visual Basic for grown-ups" ;-) - which I think is an excellent tool. Other hobbies include clock and watch repair. I'll tell you about my only real PIC project to date another time: a PIC-based watch timer. This was developed using a programmer and software from Forest Electronic Developments. Good gear, but I wanted to go to the more industry standard MPLAB/PICSTART environment. In fact, that's my first question: was that a wise move? When I first tried MPLAB a few weeks ago I was gobsmacked to find you couldn't use PICSTART with NT4. The Windows API for accessing the serial ports is the same between NT4 and W95, so heaven knows how Microchip managed it! Fortunately MPLAB 4.12 works absolutely fine with NT4. Sorry for the length of this note. Best wishes to all, Steve Thackery Suffolk, England. Web Site: http://www.btinternet.com/~stevethack/

Welcome to the list ! I'm sure you'll learn as much as I have. This list is the best thing since ice cream <g>. My background is accounting <blech!> so everything electronic is new to me. Yes, I think MPLAB/PICSTART+ is a good combination ( I must, that's the route I took <g>). There are also some C compilers for the PIC that makes life a bit easier. Although it's not real popular with the Pros on the list, the CCS compiler's not a bad deal at $100. It has bugs, but it still speeds code development for me. There are also a few high end compilers out there, but I can't comment on those. NT support was a welcome addition. I think I read here on the list recently the MChip is working a full 32bit version of MPLAB at the moment. Can't wait to see it .. it's obvious the current code was developed with Borland C 3 or 4. Good luck with your PIC projects ! Eric Oh yeah, if you want more info on the CCS compiler, let me know. On Saturday, July 03, 1999 4:16 AM, Steve Thackery [SMTP:steve.thackery@ BTINTERNET.COM] wrote: > Hello, > > I don't know if you folks have a policy on this, but I thought I'd just > mention that I've just joined the PIC List yesterday. > > I'm afraid it'll be more questions than answer from me, as I'm new to the > PIC scene, and it's many years since I did any assembler programming! > > I've bought the PICSTART Plus programmer, installed MPLAB 4.12, and also got > hold of the "Project Board 2" from Bluebird Electronics, which looks pretty > good for testing out your circuits. Yesterday I wrote my first MPLAB > program (press a button, light a led) to check that the system is working, > and it seems fine. > > Some background about me: I live over in East Anglia, England, and have > worked for BT as an engineer for the last 26 years. I've got a background > knowledge of electronics and microprocessors, and am computer literate (I > run an NT4 workstation here at home). I do some lightweight Windows > programming using Delphi - sometimes know as "Visual Basic for grown-ups" > ;-) - which I think is an excellent tool. Other hobbies include clock and > watch repair. > > I'll tell you about my only real PIC project to date another time: a > PIC-based watch timer. This was developed using a programmer and software > from Forest Electronic Developments. Good gear, but I wanted to go to the > more industry standard MPLAB/PICSTART environment. > > In fact, that's my first question: was that a wise move? > > When I first tried MPLAB a few weeks ago I was gobsmacked to find you > couldn't use PICSTART with NT4. The Windows API for accessing the serial > ports is the same between NT4 and W95, so heaven knows how Microchip managed > it! Fortunately MPLAB 4.12 works absolutely fine with NT4. > > Sorry for the length of this note. > > Best wishes to all, > > Steve Thackery > Suffolk, England. > Web Site: http://www.btinternet.com/~stevethack/

Steve Thackery wrote: > > > I think I read here on the list > > recently the MChip is working a full 32bit version of MPLAB at the moment. > > Can't wait to see it .. it's obvious the current code was developed with > > Borland C 3 or 4. > > Hooray! Without seeming rude to Microchip, I have to say that MPLAB looks > distinctly clunky and old fashioned. It's clearly written by electronics > guys who've learned to program, rather than dyed-in-the-wool software > engineers. Unfortunately, when MChip brings out their 32 bit version of MPLAB, that's when they'll no longer support any of their 16 bit versions (DOS command line and Win3.11). The up side is that maybe it'll work on NT. --Matt

All, Apparently I wouldn't know clunky if it bit me in the behind. I think MPLAB looks and works fine. I've used the DOS version(s) and the latest WINDOWS version(s), and I think they're great. Espcecially when you consider their low cost. :-) Now, to be fair, I'm not a S/W engineer, and I don't claim to be. But I do know that in all the applications that I've used a PIC, I have written the code for all of them using either the MPASM and MPSIM for DOS, or MPLAB for windows, and they all have performed generally like I expected. By this I mean I had the logic right. I had to go back and tweak some values for delays and such, but the debugging time was a mininum. I believe I owe this to the software support of MICROCHIP in the form of MPASM, MPSIM and MPLAB. Now, if anyone can come up with a better assembler/simulator for the same price, please let me know and I would be more than happy to try it out. What I am saying I guess is that I see nothing wrong with the MPLAB package. It works basically as advertised, it's cost is second to none, and it can be used by someone without much prior knowledge of this product. Those three things to me are a definite selling point. As far as bad points, I can't recall any at this point in time, but I'm sure there are some. Also, I guess 'CLUNKY' depends on your definition of CLUNKY. Bottom line for me is it's a great product, and I have used it in the past woth minimal problems and plan to use it in the future, unless of course someone can come up with something that is better for at or near the same price. Unless someone wants to do this strictly for the joy of doing it, I don't think it can be done. Therefore, I'm sold on MPLAB. No flames intended here. Just stating my opinion of MPLAB. Thanks and Regards all, Jim {Original Message removed}