Ian Bell wrote:> Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Product Line - the PIC24
Started by ●October 11, 2005
Reply by ●October 12, 20052005-10-12
Reply by ●October 12, 20052005-10-12
Paul Burke wrote:> TheDoc wrote: > >> shame.. I guess they gave up with the 8 bit trash and are now attempting >> to poison the 16 bit market > > > I wish some of the other micro producers would give as comprehensive a > coverage as Microchip. Their core architecture may be foul, but the > selection of packages (including DIP), peripherals, operating voltages, > and availability of development stuff leaves me utterly jealous. > > Paul BurkeWhy, the 8051 has it beaten every way. Ian
Reply by ●October 12, 20052005-10-12
In article <buoU4UAvlLTDFAOt@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, chris@phaedsys.org says...> In article <EaOdnRQBRskgC9benZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Bill Giovino > <editor@noospam-microcontroller.com> writes > >http://microcontroller.com/news/microchip_pic24.asp > > > >Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and > >Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts > >selection matrix is included. > > > > > >- Bill Giovino > > Executive Editor > > http://Microcontroller.com > > > SO just as the 16 bit market is declining Microchip enter it. > > The 8 bit parts are getting more powerful and thanks to ARM the 32 bit > ones a lot less expensive. The 16 bit market is on the decline. > > There are a few well entrenched parts that will go on for some time but > now is not the time to introduce a new 16 bit family. > >It makes sense to me. Put out a migration path for your users that want a bit more processing power so they won't look elsewhere. Keeps the loyalty and money in their pocket. Jim
Reply by ●October 12, 20052005-10-12
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:40:35 -0400, "Bill Giovino" <editor@noospam-microcontroller.com> wrote:>http://microcontroller.com/news/microchip_pic24.asp > >Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and >Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts >selection matrix is included. > > >- Bill Giovino > Executive Editor > http://Microcontroller.com > >Microchip sucks. I can't understand how come someone is paying 3.65 EUR for a PIC16F77, when an Atmel ATmega48 can be bought for 1.21 EUR. (DigiKey, 100 pcs). The PIC is sheer crap compared to the AVR. I didn't know so many rednecks were using MCUs. Otherwise, I can't understand Microchip's survival. Infineon C16X? What are you talking about? That is also sheer crap. Get a life, and use any ARM7 (Philips, Atmel, TI, ...) or even a 24xx TI DSP for a lower price.
Reply by ●October 13, 20052005-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Mochuelo wrote:> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:40:35 -0400, "Bill Giovino" > <editor@noospam-microcontroller.com> wrote: > > >http://microcontroller.com/news/microchip_pic24.asp > > > >Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and > >Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts > >selection matrix is included. > > > > > >- Bill Giovino > > Executive Editor > > http://Microcontroller.com > > > > > > Microchip sucks. I can't understand how come someone is paying 3.65 > EUR for a PIC16F77, when an Atmel ATmega48 can be bought for 1.21 EUR. > (DigiKey, 100 pcs). The PIC is sheer crap compared to the AVR. I > didn't know so many rednecks were using MCUs. Otherwise, I can't > understand Microchip's survival. > > Infineon C16X? What are you talking about? That is also sheer crap. > Get a life, and use any ARM7 (Philips, Atmel, TI, ...) or even a 24xx > TI DSP for a lower price. >Professionals solve problems and take advantage of the properties of a "strange" architecture. Amatures bellyache about everything to distract others from the fact that they cannot compete with professionals. Regards Sergio Masci
Reply by ●October 13, 20052005-10-13
Paul Burke wrote:> Ian Bell wrote: > >> Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way. > > Especially for the vile arhitecture.Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon. Ian
Reply by ●October 13, 20052005-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:25:47 +0000, Ian Bell <ruffrecords@yahoo.com> wrote:>Paul Burke wrote: > >> Ian Bell wrote: >> >>> Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way. >> >> Especially for the vile arhitecture. > >Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than >that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted piece of crap that had ever been devised. Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand if Microchip didn't support it so well. Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Reply by ●October 13, 20052005-10-13
On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>> Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way. >>> >>> Especially for the vile arhitecture. >> >>Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than >>that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon. > > The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted > piece of crap that had ever been devised.Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the 8051 seemed like a PDP-11.> Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand > if Microchip didn't support it so well.So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get the page boundaries in the right places. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Civilization is at fun! Anyway, it keeps visi.com me busy!!
Reply by ●October 13, 20052005-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:37:01 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:>On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way. >>>> >>>> Especially for the vile arhitecture. >>> >>>Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than >>>that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon. >> >> The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted >> piece of crap that had ever been devised. > >Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the >8051 seemed like a PDP-11. > >> Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand >> if Microchip didn't support it so well. > >So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories >of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get >the page boundaries in the right places.Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range.....
Reply by ●October 13, 20052005-10-13
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:50:42 GMT, the renowned Mike Harrison <mike@whitewing.co.uk> wrote:>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:37:01 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: > >>On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way. >>>>> >>>>> Especially for the vile arhitecture. >>>> >>>>Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than >>>>that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon. >>> >>> The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted >>> piece of crap that had ever been devised. >> >>Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the >>8051 seemed like a PDP-11. >> >>> Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand >>> if Microchip didn't support it so well. >> >>So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories >>of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get >>the page boundaries in the right places. > >Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range.....Worse. The 8048 did branches by just shoving the lower 8 bits of the target address into the PC-- so even code that "looked" very close might not be within range, and if you added or subtracted one instruction near the beginning of the code it could affect (break) branches throughout the rest of the program. The 8051 replaced that with relative branches. Nice code density, though. Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com