Remember the OP? He needed 2 UARTs plus SPI. In the MSP line, as
some great sage said, [the offerings in the MSP line] "...lacked a
crucial peripheral. ..." :) I just presented an option that
>>had<<
the crucial peripheral.
Just as with the MSP "C" line, the AT90 AVR generation is all but
extinct. The new generation is roughly divided into "Tiny"s
and "Mega"s. Our group seldom does Tiny apps. The Mega line is
pretty rational in terms of price vs. size/features. I can usually
predict the distributor price of a new Mega by knowing the "size" and
the cost of those already shipping.
Flipping back-and-forth from CISCy processors to the RISCy AVR is
sometimes hard on the head, but in the end feels pretty much like a
single-accumulator instruction set, but with 32 "accumulators".
Good luck on your projects.
Lee
--- In msp430@msp4..., onestone <onestone@b...> wrote:
> budfrog99 wrote:
>
> > Ya don't use a dump truck as a lawn tractor, even if it
>>is<<
wider.
>
> Might have on the old Sydney property I lived on, it was a few
hectares.
>
> You don't suck stew through a straw either. Why dink about with an
8 bit
> architecture for example when doing a lot of RTC
calculations, or
when
> you need a bit of trig, or when you need a
filter, FFT, etc etc
etc.
> Most of my apps are so full of calculations they
would be
impossible
> with an 8 bit device. In fact one product I have
was originally
designed
> in 1990, but its viability depended upon it being
extremely small,
and
> drawing very little current, whilst being able to
run some fairly
> complex maths. It didn't become commercially viable to build this
until
> the advent of the low power versions of the PIC
(There was a very
> specific maximum size, hence limitation on battery). It was crucial
that
> the device had at least 2 capture inputs, as it
used a digital
sensor.
> There was no suitably small AVR part that met
these specs. Even the
PIC
> meant that my first unit was severely restricted,
to 15
transactions a
> second, on just 2 sensors, plus a temperature
sensor for
calibration.
> The current MSP based version runs a total of 22
sensors, a GPS, RF
> transceiver, and MMC card. All sensors are filtered. It performs 50
> transactions a second, but is capable of 100. 4 things allow this.
The
> 16 bit architecture, allowing much faster
execution of maths
routines.
> The very low power consumption of the MSP430, the
10 available
capture
> channels, and advances in battery technology. I
doubt there is an
AVR,
> especially at the same price, that could meet
these conditions.
>
> Now I'm not bagging the AVR here at all, I used to think they were
> excllent parts, except, for my own specific needs, I never found
one
> that had everything I wanted. They were alwasy far
too much (I
don't
> mind a little overkill) or lacked a crucial
peripheral. I am a
little
> out of touch with what is what in the AVR world
now. I think they
went a
> little too much like Microchip has done. There are
confusingly far
too
> many parts in the family, many of them seem so
close to identical,
and
> not differentiated by price either. At present the
MSP is just
slightly
> the other way, but, they happen to fit my
immediate needs.
>
> Al
>
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > --- In msp430@msp4..., "microbit" <microbit@c...>
wrote:
> >
> >>>>>--Re comparing prices: look at the total
> >
> > microcontroller "job". The
> >
> >>>>>bit-width becomes irrelevant when doing the overall
system
> >
> > design,
> >
> >>>Whoa! Trigger! How can that possibly be? The bit width, and, to
a
> >
> > lesser
> >
> >>>extent the instruction length totally influences the overall
> >
> > system
> >
> >>>design, unless, by overall system design you are talking about
> >
> > some very
> >
> >>>high level abstract view of a solution. When it comes to the
> >
> > practical
> >
> >>>design I'm afraid bit width is crucial in most
applications I've
> >
> > ever
> >
> >>>been involved with. I approach designs for the MSP totally
> >
> > differently
> >
> >>>that I do those for pure 8 bit micros. With the MSP I can
> >
> > immediately
> >
> >>>start to factor in savings in transfer of 12 bit A/D values,
> >
> > faster, and
> >
> >>>simplifed naths routines, optimisations of math routines using
> >
> > byte
> >
> >>>swapping for example
> >>
> >>Have to completely agree with Al here, just to stir and flavour
it
> >
> > a bit :-)
> >
> >>In the last few years, if all system desings I did were to
> >
> > disregard the
> >
> >>target
> >>machine instr width (and its peripherals) , most of them would
have
> >
> > been a
> >
> >>failure !
> >>(Not to mention that the CPU vs. MCU argument is so far out that
> >
> > it's not
> >
> >>funny)
> >>
> >>Better start learning how to cook those Brussels Sprouts ! :-)
> >>
> >>-- Kris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >
> >
> >
budfrog99 wrote:
> Remember the OP?
Who's he? ;@} Hmmm we have strayed a little, as often happens.
> He needed 2 UARTs plus SPI. In the MSP line, as
> some great sage said, [the offerings in the MSP line] "...lacked a
> crucial peripheral. ..." :) I just presented an option that
>>had<<
> the crucial peripheral.
>
> Just as with the MSP "C" line, the AT90 AVR generation is all but
> extinct. The new generation is roughly divided into "Tiny"s
> and "Mega"s. Our group seldom does Tiny apps. The Mega line is
> pretty rational in terms of price vs. size/features. I can usually
> predict the distributor price of a new Mega by knowing the "size"
and
> the cost of those already shipping.
What I forgot to add in my description of the current project was that
it utilises dual, UARTs + SPI. The neat capture structure of the MSP
makes implementing a software UART very efficient. The port pins used
for this are standard throughout the MSP range, another plus, as they
are used in the BSL mode. Where I use an RF transceiver I nearly always
use the software UART on these pins. It simplifes having an Rf based
reprogram facility, and also means less hassle if I want to switch from
a conventional UART to, say, some bit timed protocol
>
> Flipping back-and-forth from CISCy processors to the RISCy AVR is
> sometimes hard on the head, but in the end feels pretty much like a
> single-accumulator instruction set, but with 32 "accumulators".
>
I would never have considered the AVR as being even remotely RISC like.
Far too many complex instructions, too many complex addressing modes,
the only thing RISCy is the clunky way it can only load /store through
registers.
> Good luck on your projects.
And the same to you..
Al
Reply by budfrog99●November 29, 20032003-11-29
Ya don't use a dump truck as a lawn tractor, even if it
>>is<< wider.
Lee
--- In msp430@msp4..., "microbit" <microbit@c...> wrote:
> > >>--Re comparing prices: look at the
total
microcontroller "job". The
> > >>bit-width becomes irrelevant when
doing the overall system
design,
> >
> > Whoa! Trigger! How can that possibly be? The bit width, and, to a
lesser
> > extent the instruction length totally
influences the overall
system
> > design, unless, by overall system design you
are talking about
some very
> > high level abstract view of a solution. When
it comes to the
practical
> > design I'm afraid bit width is crucial
in most applications I've
ever
> > been involved with. I approach designs for
the MSP totally
differently
> > that I do those for pure 8 bit micros. With
the MSP I can
immediately
> > start to factor in savings in transfer of 12
bit A/D values,
faster, and
> > simplifed naths routines, optimisations of
math routines using
byte
> > swapping for example
>
> Have to completely agree with Al here, just to stir and flavour it
a bit :-)
> In the last few years, if all system desings I did
were to
disregard the
> target
> machine instr width (and its peripherals) , most of them would have
been a
> failure !
> (Not to mention that the CPU vs. MCU argument is so far out that
it's not
> funny)
>
> Better start learning how to cook those Brussels Sprouts ! :-)
>
> -- Kris
Reply by microbit●November 29, 20032003-11-29
> >>--Re comparing prices: look at the total microcontroller
"job". The
> >>bit-width becomes irrelevant when doing
the overall system design,
>
> Whoa! Trigger! How can that possibly be? The bit width, and, to a lesser
> extent the instruction length totally influences the overall system
> design, unless, by overall system design you are talking about some very
> high level abstract view of a solution. When it comes to the practical
> design I'm afraid bit width is crucial in most applications I've
ever
> been involved with. I approach designs for the MSP totally differently
> that I do those for pure 8 bit micros. With the MSP I can immediately
> start to factor in savings in transfer of 12 bit A/D values, faster, and
> simplifed naths routines, optimisations of math routines using byte
> swapping for example
Have to completely agree with Al here, just to stir and flavour it a bit :-)
In the last few years, if all system desings I did were to disregard the
target
machine instr width (and its peripherals) , most of them would have been a
failure !
(Not to mention that the CPU vs. MCU argument is so far out that it's not
funny)
Better start learning how to cook those Brussels Sprouts ! :-)
-- Kris
Reply by onestone●November 29, 20032003-11-29
budfrog99 wrote:
> Ya don't use a dump truck as a lawn tractor,
even if it >>is<< wider.
Might have on the old Sydney property I lived on, it was a few hectares.
You don't suck stew through a straw either. Why dink about with an 8 bit
architecture for example when doing a lot of RTC calculations, or when
you need a bit of trig, or when you need a filter, FFT, etc etc etc.
Most of my apps are so full of calculations they would be impossible
with an 8 bit device. In fact one product I have was originally designed
in 1990, but its viability depended upon it being extremely small, and
drawing very little current, whilst being able to run some fairly
complex maths. It didn't become commercially viable to build this until
the advent of the low power versions of the PIC (There was a very
specific maximum size, hence limitation on battery). It was crucial that
the device had at least 2 capture inputs, as it used a digital sensor.
There was no suitably small AVR part that met these specs. Even the PIC
meant that my first unit was severely restricted, to 15 transactions a
second, on just 2 sensors, plus a temperature sensor for calibration.
The current MSP based version runs a total of 22 sensors, a GPS, RF
transceiver, and MMC card. All sensors are filtered. It performs 50
transactions a second, but is capable of 100. 4 things allow this. The
16 bit architecture, allowing much faster execution of maths routines.
The very low power consumption of the MSP430, the 10 available capture
channels, and advances in battery technology. I doubt there is an AVR,
especially at the same price, that could meet these conditions.
Now I'm not bagging the AVR here at all, I used to think they were
excllent parts, except, for my own specific needs, I never found one
that had everything I wanted. They were alwasy far too much (I don't
mind a little overkill) or lacked a crucial peripheral. I am a little
out of touch with what is what in the AVR world now. I think they went a
little too much like Microchip has done. There are confusingly far too
many parts in the family, many of them seem so close to identical, and
not differentiated by price either. At present the MSP is just slightly
the other way, but, they happen to fit my immediate needs.
Al
>
> Lee
>
> --- In msp430@msp4..., "microbit" <microbit@c...> wrote:
>
>>>>>--Re comparing prices: look at the total
>
> microcontroller "job". The
>
>>>>>bit-width becomes irrelevant when doing the overall system
>
> design,
>
>>>Whoa! Trigger! How can that possibly be? The bit width, and, to a
>
> lesser
>
>>>extent the instruction length totally influences the overall
>
> system
>
>>>design, unless, by overall system design you are talking about
>
> some very
>
>>>high level abstract view of a solution. When it comes to the
>
> practical
>
>>>design I'm afraid bit width is crucial in most applications
I've
>
> ever
>
>>>been involved with. I approach designs for the MSP totally
>
> differently
>
>>>that I do those for pure 8 bit micros. With the MSP I can
>
> immediately
>
>>>start to factor in savings in transfer of 12 bit A/D values,
>
> faster, and
>
>>>simplifed naths routines, optimisations of math routines using
>
> byte
>
>>>swapping for example
>>
>>Have to completely agree with Al here, just to stir and flavour it
>
> a bit :-)
>
>>In the last few years, if all system desings I did were to
>
> disregard the
>
>>target
>>machine instr width (and its peripherals) , most of them would have
>
> been a
>
>>failure !
>>(Not to mention that the CPU vs. MCU argument is so far out that
>
> it's not
>
>>funny)
>>
>>Better start learning how to cook those Brussels Sprouts ! :-)
>>
>>-- Kris
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Reply by Peter Jakacki●November 28, 20032003-11-28
budfrog99 wrote:
>
> On to the second "cold one".
>
> --It just ain't right Peter--you ain't playing by fair rules.
> Comparing your '1200 "ancient" project to current '430
models isn't
> right. Maybe I should compare the newest AVRs to the "C"
> series '430s with no flash--you see what I mean.
>
Fair!? are we supposed to be playing fair now?
Actually, if any AVR could run at low power it should be the most basic
and simple device available, the 1200 is about as basic as you can get.
> Anyway, the 16-bit usefulness of the '430 may
be critical in some
> apps, but irrelevant in many microcontroller apps. As some wit so
> aptly stated: "...if an AVR had the necessary peripheral hardware on-
> chip which the MSP didn't have then I would use the AVR, but only
> because of the peripherals, not because of the CPU. "
>
Yes, I would even use a PIC if it had just the right peripherals
for the job that no other chip came near, I mean you have to don't you?
Brussel sprouts, brussel sprouts.
> Think of the CPU architecture as just
"peripheral hardware". :)
>
Sorry, can't, I don't write volumes of code in "peripheral
language",
but I suppose if you program in C you could distance yourself from
the CPU architecture, but then you could use a PIC and not care.
> --Re comparing prices: look at the total
microcontroller "job". The
> bit-width becomes irrelevant when doing the overall system design,
> unless that particular "peripheral hardware" is needed. I stand
> behind the cost effectiveness of the AVR Mega8 in microcontroller
> apps, and that TI has nothing to match it. Sure you could blow it
> away in certain processing apps, but those are
micro>>processor<<
> tasks, not micro>>controller<< apps.
Look Lee, I do want to keep on taunting you but I really am ready to
listen to informed viewpoints. Just don't expect me to be nodding
my head and be busting to use an AVR in my next project.
BTW, this is the msp430 group, don't expect warm welcomes when you
burst into camp laden with AVRs. Which reminds me, some may think that
Australians all drink Fosters or VB but I can tell you that they
would be one of the last beers I'd drink, weak southern woose beer,
excepting Carlton Crown of course. Someone, gimme a XXXX or a Hahn!!!.
>
> --Certainly the '430s have certain features that I like more than on
> the AVRs. I've yet to find an app [done by my org] where I "ran
out"
> of PWM channels--6 were more than enough. Same with input capture (a
> couple) and pin-change interrupts (up to a dozen or so). The current
> generation has more timers than I need--usually 3 or 4. And SPI is
> on all but the Tinys,; those types of apps I don't usually get into.
>
SPI seems to be a favourite with the Motorola crowd, I almost always
favoured I2C which I mostly implemented in software. SPI does have its
place when some multi-megahertz serial transfer needs to take place.
It is after all just a slightly glorified shift register.
> --My latest app does indeed blink an LED, and a
bi-color one at
> that. :)
Luv it :)
>
http://www.automatictiming.com/pages_div/phasevoltagesection/phasevolt
> age.html#MPA
> In addition, a single AVR running at 7.3728 MHz is doing: 3-phase AC
> voltage/current/power monitoring;
I certainly hope it can do that.
> a dozen programmable trip and alarm
> points; 6 switch inputs; 2x16 VFD display; output load relays;
Not an issue in any micro really, now about those gas lights....
Peter Jakacki - on to the next round (of beer)
Reply by J.C. Wren●November 28, 20032003-11-28
I'm pretty sure brussels sprouts are the part of the plant
you're supposed to
throw away.
--jc
"We've had sushi in Alabama for years. We call it
'bait'."
On Friday 28 November 2003 11:19 am, microbit wrote:
> > Peter Jakacki wrote:
> > > budfrog99 wrote:
> > > Trying to get me to use an AVR is like trying to get a
> > > kid to eat his brussel sprouts, it is possible, just not easy.
> > >
> > > ho ho ho ho
> >
> > But I always liked Brussels perhaps I really am contrary! maybe
that's
> > it, it all started when I was very young Doctor. My Mother fed me
> > brussels and they were good...
> >
> > > --
> > > Peter Jakacki
>
> Ho ho,
>
> I wholehartedly agree with Peter.
> I'm originally Belgian and I _loved_ Brussels sprouts
> (proviso they're cooked the proper way).
>
> The only time they're "yucky", is because they've been
totally and utterly
> cooked the wrong way.
> Yet another sigma...... :-)
>
> -- Kris
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
Reply by microbit●November 28, 20032003-11-28
> Peter Jakacki wrote:
> > budfrog99 wrote:
> > Trying to get me to use an AVR is like trying to get a
> > kid to eat his brussel sprouts, it is possible, just not easy.
> >
> > ho ho ho ho
>
> But I always liked Brussels perhaps I really am contrary! maybe that's
> it, it all started when I was very young Doctor. My Mother fed me
> brussels and they were good...
>
> >
> > --
> > Peter Jakacki
Ho ho,
I wholehartedly agree with Peter.
I'm originally Belgian and I _loved_ Brussels sprouts
(proviso they're cooked the proper way).
The only time they're "yucky", is because they've been
totally and utterly
cooked the wrong way.
Yet another sigma...... :-)
-- Kris
Reply by budfrog99●November 28, 20032003-11-28
On to the second "cold one".
--It just ain't right Peter--you ain't playing by fair rules.
Comparing your '1200 "ancient" project to current '430
models isn't
right. Maybe I should compare the newest AVRs to the "C"
series '430s with no flash--you see what I mean.
Anyway, the 16-bit usefulness of the '430 may be critical in some
apps, but irrelevant in many microcontroller apps. As some wit so
aptly stated: "...if an AVR had the necessary peripheral hardware on-
chip which the MSP didn't have then I would use the AVR, but only
because of the peripherals, not because of the CPU. "
Think of the CPU architecture as just "peripheral hardware". :)
--Re comparing prices: look at the total microcontroller "job". The
bit-width becomes irrelevant when doing the overall system design,
unless that particular "peripheral hardware" is needed. I stand
behind the cost effectiveness of the AVR Mega8 in microcontroller
apps, and that TI has nothing to match it. Sure you could blow it
away in certain processing apps, but those are micro>>processor<<
tasks, not micro>>controller<< apps.
--Certainly the '430s have certain features that I like more than on
the AVRs. I've yet to find an app [done by my org] where I "ran
out"
of PWM channels--6 were more than enough. Same with input capture (a
couple) and pin-change interrupts (up to a dozen or so). The current
generation has more timers than I need--usually 3 or 4. And SPI is
on all but the Tinys,; those types of apps I don't usually get into.
--My latest app does indeed blink an LED, and a bi-color one at
that. :)
http://www.automatictiming.com/pages_div/phasevoltagesection/phasevolt
age.html#MPA
In addition, a single AVR running at 7.3728 MHz is doing: 3-phase AC
voltage/current/power monitoring; a dozen programmable trip and alarm
points; 6 switch inputs; 2x16 VFD display; output load relays;
--- In msp430@msp4..., Peter Jakacki <cyb@i...> wrote:
> budfrog99 wrote:
> >
> > "Lee (budfrog99) mentioned using an AVR but besides using an
inferior
> > 8-bit architecture the AVR's only have
one uart (except high-end
> > mega128 $$$) and maybe one SPI. Sorry Lee, been there, done that,
> > definitely not an answer."
> >
> > I hate to start a processor-family Holy Crusade, but it
>>is<< the
> > holiday season after all. :)
> >
> > --AVRs with more than one uart include Mega103 & Mega161
(obsolete),
> > Mega162, Mega64, and Mega128.
> >
>
> Lee,
> Sure, I like a heated debate just like the next guy, but I
usually try
> to do it over a cold beer, but since it is the
holiday season .... I
> haven't ruled out AVRs yet because I'm way too familiar with
them,
but
> maybe not so familiar with some of the newer
variants. I've been
using
> them since the first engineering samples were
available with the
1200
> and 8515. But like Al and others I'm mostly
an asm man and whereas
many
> C programmers don't see the kludgieness of
the load/store 8-bits at
a
> time architecture, it sure bugs me, but not
anywhere near as much as
> PICs which btw do have their place, like flashing lights and timing
> things in seconds etc ;)
>
>
> > --Mega128 prices have dropped, and aren't much more than (say)
> > a '449. Mega64 is about the same price as a '449. Mega162
about
> > half that.
> >
>
> 8-bit CPU for 'about the same' or 'not much more' as a
16-bit CPU,
wow!
>
> > --Every sizeable AVR has a separate SPI & I2C in addition to the
UART
> > (s). Yes, Peter, only one--how many SPIs do
you need on one
> > processor, anyway? [I guess the quick answer would be to be a
master
> > and a slave within a bigger system??]
>
> How many? Did I say "maybe one SPI", that is as in one or none.
>
> >
> > --Performance is such a subjective thing. I don't usually run
out of
> > gas on AVR apps even at relatively modest
clock rates.
>
> Flashing lights again, or are they "gas" lights? ;)
>
> >
> > --When I need to design a system from the ground up for low power
> > consumption, I start with the '430s. Why fight to get low power
> > consumption from an AVR when it is in the genes of the '430.
> >
>
> True, and I had weird things happen when I tried to run an early AVR
> 1200 off a 32K rock for low power, it just doesn't like them. The
> datasheet says it ran down to DC but didn't mention the
unsuitability of
> the oscillator with tuning fork crystals. Then I
clocked it direct
from
> a PIC12C509 (quick and easy clock source) and
still had weird things
> happen. Ended up running at 4Mhz and using the watchdog to wake it
up
> for brief intervals.
>
> > --For some things I prefer the AVR implementation. Timers are one
> > area.
> >
> > --'430 has >>no<< model to compete
price/features/performance with
> > the AVR Mega8.
> >
>
> Mmmm, if an AVR had the necessary peripheral hardware on-chip which
the
> MSP didn't have then I would use the AVR, but
only because of the
> peripherals, not because of the CPU. But then again, I'd rather use
a
> H8S if possible. Trying to get me to use an AVR is
like trying to
get a
> kid to eat his brussel sprouts, it is possible,
just not easy.
>
> ho ho ho ho
>
> --
> Peter Jakacki
>
> ----DISCLAIMER------
> 1. If I didn't insult you I probably meant to.
> 2. My opinion isn't any better than anyone elses, it's just that
I'm
> right.
> 3. Disputes may be settled over a cold beer or two.
> 4. In the event an agreement cannot be reached the two parties
should
> drink more beer.
Reply by onestone●November 28, 20032003-11-28
Peter Jakacki wrote:
> budfrog99 wrote:
>
>>On to the second "cold one".
...
>>Think of the CPU architecture as just
"peripheral hardware". :)
>>
>
>
> Sorry, can't, I don't write volumes of code in "peripheral
language",
> but I suppose if you program in C you could distance yourself from
> the CPU architecture, but then you could use a PIC and not care.
Crashing in with Hob nail boots.
Impossible. The peripherals are peripheral to the CPU, what are we to
consider the cpu peripheral to, I know, the instructions set, ah, but,
hang on, that is just a way of describing the cpu architecture in a
human digestible form. Naw! Sorry! Can't figure out what I should
consider the CPu peripheral to.
>>--Re comparing prices: look at the total
microcontroller "job". The
>>bit-width becomes irrelevant when doing the overall system design,
Whoa! Trigger! How can that possibly be? The bit width, and, to a lesser
extent the instruction length totally influences the overall system
design, unless, by overall system design you are talking about some very
high level abstract view of a solution. When it comes to the practical
design I'm afraid bit width is crucial in most applications I've ever
been involved with. I approach designs for the MSP totally differently
that I do those for pure 8 bit micros. With the MSP I can immediately
start to factor in savings in transfer of 12 bit A/D values, faster, and
simplifed naths routines, optimisations of math routines using byte
swapping for example
>>unless that particular "peripheral
hardware" is needed. I stand
>>behind the cost effectiveness of the AVR Mega8 in microcontroller
>>apps, and that TI has nothing to match it. Sure you could blow it
>>away in certain processing apps, but those are
micro>>processor<<
>>tasks, not micro>>controller<< apps.
The underlying implication here, perhaps fogged by more than the two
beers you're admitting to, (unless of course you're drinking real
beer,
not some american soft drink) is that anything requiring a bit of maths
is a microprocessor application,. That is so far off the beam you'd be
drummed out of the navy, no more rations of rum for you my boy!
Microprocessors are typically cpu cores with minimal peripherals,
typically address and clock units, that are typically, but not
exclusively optimised for data manipulation. Microcontrollers are cpu
cores with a varying level of peripherals optimised, typically for real
world interface. All my tasks are real world interface, and most require
at least some level of maths. I can't imagine you do AD without
bothering to filter or otherwise manipulate the data. Or that you never
have to normalise readings against calibration data.
>
> Look Lee, I do want to keep on taunting you but I really am ready to
> listen to informed viewpoints. Just don't expect me to be nodding
> my head and be busting to use an AVR in my next project.
>
> BTW, this is the msp430 group, don't expect warm welcomes when you
> burst into camp laden with AVRs. Which reminds me, some may think that
> Australians all drink Fosters or VB but I can tell you that they
> would be one of the last beers I'd drink, weak southern woose beer,
> excepting Carlton Crown of course. Someone, gimme a XXXX or a Hahn!!!.
Throw me a real Warsteiner any day, not the watered down stuff they
export..
Al