On Feb 19, 12:54 pm, "[Frank]" <____n...@email.it> wrote:> I'm new to microcontrollers world. > > I have only a little experience with Z80 based systems. > > I saw some Atmel AVR's sources and I loved it: very clear. > > Someone suggest me to start with PIC, someone else with AVR. > > The net is full of doc/projects about PIC and give me a bit of > confusione; AVR much less...instead. > > What do you think about? What's the best approach for a beginner? > > Thanks in advanceAVR butterfly + free C gcc complier is $20 , a nice cheap startup kit, you can mix C and assembler very easily with the AVR.
AVR or PIC for a beginner
Started by ●February 19, 2007
Reply by ●February 19, 20072007-02-19
Reply by ●February 19, 20072007-02-19
On Feb 19, 2:30 pm, "Aly" <,shfskf...@sliuflky4iuhdf.erl> wrote:> "larwe" <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1171910012.299179.171790@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > <SNIP> > > > > > but it's simply less weird than PIC > > Now that bit definitely is true. The PIC achitecture sure is weird. But > I've been coding PICs in assembler for what must be about 2-years now so am > almost used to it. > > The PIC makes you think, ALOT. But I find there are things you can do with > them that are just mind boggling amazing. Being able to multiply and divide > a 24-bit number in 4 clock cycles on a 40 MIPS dsPIC makes you wonder where > you'd been all your life. That's like 100nanoseconds!!Not bad for 10M 24 bits. I haven't check it yet, so not sure about /. Arm M3 core claims to have single cycle 32 bits at 50 MHz. 20 nanoseconds 32 bits multipler for $3 is simply amazing.> > But PICs sure are weird. As I have become programming them. > > Also, each PIC release architecture is almost drastically different from the > next, ie. 12F, 16F, 18F, 30F. Things like getting used to having the target > register on the left, is now on the right. Perculiar stuff like that. > > The PICs though I find a joy to program.
Reply by ●February 19, 20072007-02-19
On Feb 19, 5:30 pm, "Aly" <,shfskf...@sliuflky4iuhdf.erl> wrote:> "larwe" <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1171910012.299179.171790@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > <SNIP> > > > > > but it's simply less weird than PIC > > Now that bit definitely is true. The PIC achitecture sure is weird. But > I've been coding PICs in assembler for what must be about 2-years now so am > almost used to it. > > The PIC makes you think, ALOT. But I find there are things you can do with > them that are just mind boggling amazing. Being able to multiply and divide > a 24-bit number in 4 clock cycles on a 40 MIPS dsPIC makes you wonder where > you'd been all your life. That's like 100nanoseconds!!24 bit? divide alone is 18 cycles on a dsPIC.
Reply by ●February 19, 20072007-02-19
Aly wrote:> "larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1171910012.299179.171790@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... <SNIP> >> but it's simply less weird than PIC >> > > Now that bit definitely is true. The PIC achitecture sure is weird. But > I've been coding PICs in assembler for what must be about 2-years now so > am almost used to it. > > The PIC makes you think, ALOT. But I find there are things you can do > with them that are just mind boggling amazing. Being able to multiply > and divide a 24-bit number in 4 clock cycles on a 40 MIPS dsPIC makes you > wonder where you'd been all your life. That's like 100nanoseconds!! > > But PICs sure are weird. As I have become programming them. > > Also, each PIC release architecture is almost drastically different from > the next, ie. 12F, 16F, 18F, 30F. Things like getting used to having the > target register on the left, is now on the right. Perculiar stuff like > that. > > The PICs though I find a joy to program.From what I've read of the specs, the dsPIC is a whole new beast, very different from its little PIC siblings. I also remember reading something about an engineer at Microchip saying that basically the dsPIC was a new core with just a bit of PIC likeliness bolted on. YMMV as usual, but while I tend to seriously dislike the PICs, I'm quite neutral regarding the dsPIC. It seems to be a clean and nice design; I'll wait until I'll actually work with it to make up my mind. Regards, D.
Reply by ●February 19, 20072007-02-19
Terran Melconian wrote:> On 2007-02-19, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >>* Do the pins have enough oomph to do what I want? A circuit with >> a processor and a bunch of drivers is much larger than a circuit >> with just a processor. IIRC the PIC and the TI MPS430 excel at >> this. > > > AVRs certainly do not, anyway. In fact, Atmel is taking the AVRs in the > opposite direction, and has halved the specified source and sink current > recently in some newer parts (e.g. TinyX61). Very disappointing for us! > I hope they reconsider.Very unlikely. There is a general trend downwards in drive ability in uC, as they push the die sizes down. 8-10mA is now a common spec point, with PIN maxs in the region of 25mA, and package Max's 100-200mA. If you want more on one pin, add a transistor. If you want to push many-pin drive, you are better with CPLDs, where the package limits are 500mA @ 44pin or 1000mA @ 100pin -jg
Reply by ●February 19, 20072007-02-19
Jim Granville wrote:> [Frank] wrote: >> I'm new to microcontrollers world. >> >> I have only a little experience with Z80 based systems. >> >> I saw some Atmel AVR's sources and I loved it: very clear. >> >> Someone suggest me to start with PIC, someone else with AVR. >> >> The net is full of doc/projects about PIC and give me a bit of >> confusione; AVR much less...instead. >> >> What do you think about? What's the best approach for a beginner? > > Download the tool sets and try them. Find one you like. > > Or choose an application, and work backwards from there. > > I suggest you also look at SiLabs C8051F family, and their ToolSticks TI > MSP 430 family, Similar toolsticks, but no 5V parts Zilog's devices, > since you already have some background there eZ80, Z8F, ZENO etc > Freescale, who are having a push on their smaller parts. > > -jgI second JG on his Zilog mention. They have a few different families, and quite a lot of different parts in the Z8 Encore! (XP or not) one. The main Z8 Encore! advantages I see are: - very low cost dev kits, including USB probes - free development environment: asm, unlimited C compiler, debugger, ... - good documentation - not a choice of peripherals as wide as Microchip's, but good ones (one of Zilog's historical strengths) - low cost chips, and they're available in DIP packages! (Someone with more experience and buying budget might give you a more accurate picture when it comes to large-quantity prices.) I must say I'm biased, as for some reason I'm very much at home with the Zilog chips, much more than with other architectures. I like their assembly, the way they're set up and so on, but of course you would have to check for yourself, Z80 background or not. The ZNEOs, the new 16-bitters in the family, seem to be very very nice chips. Well I say 16-bitters, but actually they're 32-bit chips with a 24-bit address space and a 16-bit bus width... Their design is clean, and although I have not yet taken the time to do a proper systematic analysis, they seem to be close to a Z80000 running in Z8000 mode (ie with the 24 bits address space, just like the Z8001). That would make them very much like the Motorola 68000, with the possibility of evolution to a full 32-bit chip. They're fairly orthogonal, and with 16 general-purpose registers they're much more modern designs than the Z80/eZ80. As with the Z8s, some low-cost dev kits are available, with free tools. Not many parts yet though, basically variants of the same one with different Flash and RAM sizes and with/without the external bus. This core's first silicon errata also shows an annoying bug in the stack frame handling, so you might want to wait for a new revision to bypass this issue. OK, enough of the shameless plug. Zilog, you owe me on this one. :) If you're planning on learning and experimenting with those chips, low-cost kits and tools and DIP packages are pretty useful. But if you want to do this for a living, at any rate follow all advice given to you by the wise people of this NG: play with the tools, design you application and go backwards from there. Best way to get the right part for the job. Regards, D.
Reply by ●February 20, 20072007-02-20
"[Frank]" wrote:> > I'm new to microcontrollers world. > > I have only a little experience with Z80 based systems. > > I saw some Atmel AVR's sources and I loved it: very clear.I suppose this wasn't an assembly source. If you choose the AVR, you better forget the ATMEL assembler and write your own. I can tolerate crippled hardware (you have to make compromises if you want small and cheap chips) but there is no reason to use a confusing assembly syntax. Here a example of a simple program, once written with the Atmel assembler and once written with a clean syntax for the AVR: ftp://137.193.64.130/pub/assembler/uhr_e.pdf
Reply by ●February 20, 20072007-02-20
"steve" <bungalow_steve@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1171926117.400805.3150@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 19, 5:30 pm, "Aly" <,shfskf...@sliuflky4iuhdf.erl> wrote: > > "larwe" <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1171910012.299179.171790@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > <SNIP> > ><SNIP>>0nanoseconds!! > > 24 bit? divide alone is 18 cycles on a dsPIC. > >You don't use the implemented MUL and DIV style instructions. You develop your own through bit manipulation and shifting. ;-)
Reply by ●February 20, 20072007-02-20
"Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@unibwm.de> skrev i meddelandet news:45DAB907.78C5998F@unibwm.de...> "[Frank]" wrote: >> >> I'm new to microcontrollers world. >> >> I have only a little experience with Z80 based systems. >> >> I saw some Atmel AVR's sources and I loved it: very clear. > > I suppose this wasn't an assembly source. If you choose the > AVR, you better forget the ATMEL assembler and write your > own.Or use the Free IAR Assembler -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson This is intended to be my personal opinion which may, or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Reply by ●February 21, 20072007-02-21
Herbert Kleebauer ha scritto:> ftp://137.193.64.130/pub/assembler/uhr_e.pdfI found more readable the Atmel. Anyway seems Atmel AVR assembler v2 will be better.
