Truncated match.
PICList
Thread
'Parallax or Picstart? (also, uASM note)'
1994\08\31@230011
by
eric
> Additionally, the PicStart's serial connection is completely
> nonstandard/proprietary, with pretty low-level UART stuff. Would this still
> work with LINUX (even emulating DOS)? It definitely doesn't work with the
> MAC.
I've been looking at the PICStart communications with an HP 4952A protocol
analyzer. They use receive data, transmit data, and one handshake line in
each direction. The handshake lines are toggled after every command or data
byte.
I haven't completely worked out the details yet, but I think the Macintosh
could actually talk to it. A special cable might be needed.
Cheers,
Eric
'Parallax or Picstart? (also, uASM note)'
1994\09\01@010100
by
crocontroller discussion list
|
>Hi PICers,
>
>David said,
>
>>
>> 1. Parallax uses parallel PC port, PICSTART uses serial. You could
>> probably use PICSTART from Linux with the DOS emulator, but you can't
>> do that with the parallax since the DOS emulator doesn't support the
>> parallel port.
>
>I know this list is not for Linux discussions, but I must disagree here.
>The parallel port works fine under DOSEMU. Add the following line to your
>/etc/dosemu.conf
Additionally, the PicStart's serial connection is completely
nonstandard/proprietary, with pretty low-level UART stuff. Would this still
work with LINUX (even emulating DOS)? It definitely doesn't work with the
MAC.
Again, I'll take this time to second Don Lekei's recommendation of the
Beradine MicroBurner 512 (see FAQ for more info). It is a little pricey
(maybe $350), but well worth it. I have both this and a PICSTART (which I
used before I found the microburner), and I don't even take the PICSTART
out of the box anymore. It uses a standard RS-232 serial connection, and
you can get new modules to let it program new/different chipsets (although
they are also admittedly a bit pricey at somewhat over $100 each). It also
uses a serial programming routine (WRT THE PIC), so I always have 5 wire
connectors on my oceanographic instrumnts, and I can update the frmware
with a simple 5-wire cable from the Microburner to the instrument's circuit
board (ie: in situ programming, whic I believe the Parallax TruFlight will
also do, but the PICSTART will not). Also, since you can download programs
from the host computer, to the microburner (which can run off the included
AC adapter or a 12V battery) you can program the new firmware into the
buner, and take it (no host computer) to the instrument and update the
firmware.
I have no cnoonction to the MicroBurner, except as a normal customer.
-jory
PS: Has anyone gotten a version the uASM (for the MAC, from MicroDialects)
that will work with the 16c84? Any work on any new MAC-based development
tools (I'd especially like a good c84 supporting simulator) I am really
trying to get away from SOFTPC! (and I don't have a UNIX or PC/LINUX box,
so those emerging avenues/alternatives don't help. :)
Gratuitous Background Info:I thought I had bought a c84/c71 uASM version,
but hadn't gotten around to using it for a long time. When I recently tried
assembling some c84 code with it, I found it wouldn't recognize page1
memory access, etc. I didn't see anywhere I could select the PIC version,
so I guessed I had the wrong version. I called MicroDialects, but could not
get a hold of anyone who could answer my questions. Several weeks ago, I
finally returned the original disk, with a polite letter asking for the
correct version (I have not heard back yet). Anyone else have ay particular
experiences with them?
1994\09\01@020540
by
crocontroller discussion list
> Additionally, the PicStart's serial connection is completely
> nonstandard/proprietary, with pretty low-level UART stuff. Would this still
> work with LINUX (even emulating DOS)? It definitely doesn't work with the
> MAC.
I've been looking at the PICStart communications with an HP 4952A protocol
analyzer. They use receive data, transmit data, and one handshake line in
each direction. The handshake lines are toggled after every command or data
byte.
I haven't completely worked out the details yet, but I think the Macintosh
could actually talk to it. A special cable might be needed.
Cheers,
Eric
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1994
, 1995 only
- Today
- New search...