I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10 of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use Pic Basic Pro to write in· Basic and convert to Assembly ···· for a pic. Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?·
The PIC is a natural step since the Stamp itself uses the PIC and there are several Basic compilers that are more or less compatible with the Stamp. However, if you are going to do assembly (and all the really cool things work better in assembler) you might want to consider the SX. The Parallax SX-Key gives you a really nice debugging environment for very little money. The fact that an SX at 50MHz is about the same as a PIC running at 200MHz doesn't hurt any either. On top of that, the SX has greatly simplified interrupt handling, etc.
Like most things, however, one size does not fit all. For example, if you want to hook up large amounts of external memory, maybe a 68HC12 or something similar would be of use. I have used the AVR but I wasn't impressed -- the parts are too hard to get and I personally didn't like the assembly language.
I've not been a big fan of what I have seen of the BasicX chips. If I want to embed Visual Basic I will go with a PC/104 card. The strength of the Stamp is that it is simple and inexpensive.
So, if you want to do "Stampish" things but you also want high speed, low cost, and interrupts, think about the SX. If you want access to lots of memory, etc. think about a "traditional" micro like a 68HCxx. If you want to replace a PC, don't -- use PC/104.
Original Message
From: Mom and Dad [noparse][[/noparse]mailto:jababell@iu.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:39 PM To: basicstamps@egroups.com Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] next step
I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10 of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use Pic Basic Pro to write in· Basic and convert to Assembly ···· for a pic. Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?·
The PIC is a natural step since the Stamp itself uses the PIC and there are several Basic compilers that are more or less compatible with the Stamp. However, if you are going to do assembly (and all the really cool things work better in assembler) you might want to consider the SX. The Parallax SX-Key gives you a really nice debugging environment for very little money. The fact that an SX at 50MHz is about the same as a PIC running at 200MHz doesn't hurt any either. On top of that, the SX has greatly simplified interrupt handling, etc.
Like most things, however, one size does not fit all. For example, if you want to hook up large amounts of external memory, maybe a 68HC12 or something similar would be of use. I have used the AVR but I wasn't impressed -- the parts are too hard to get and I personally didn't like the assembly language.
I've not been a big fan of what I have seen of the BasicX chips. If I want to embed Visual Basic I will go with a PC/104 card. The strength of the Stamp is that it is simple and inexpensive.
So, if you want to do "Stampish" things but you also want high speed, low cost, and interrupts, think about the SX. If you want access to lots of memory, etc. think about a "traditional" micro like a 68HCxx. If you want to replace a PC, don't -- use PC/104.
Original Message
From: Mom and Dad [noparse][[/noparse]mailto:jababell@iu.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:39 PM To: basicstamps@egroups.com Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] next step
I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10 of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use Pic Basic Pro to write in· Basic and convert to Assembly ···· for a pic. Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?·
Perhaps my experience isn't typical, but I *like* Atmel AVR chips,
especially by comparison with PICs. They use 16-bit code words, and offer a
simple, linear memory model. AVRs run 4X faster than PICs for the same
clock rate, consume a *lot* less power than Scenix SX chips, and the
assembly language isn't any more difficult than several others I've used.
You don't have to move data through a "W" (working) register. Even the
cheapest AVRs have interrupts and built-in EE memory, and all AVRs are
in-system re-programmable using a cheap printer port adapter cable. If you
want to use a BASIC compiler, try BASCOM-- There's a free version at http://www.mcselec.com. And, NO, I don't work for Atmel! I've experienced
at least one major problem with AVR products-- The external memory
interface is a calamity in motion. Don't use it!
>>> I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10
of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use
Pic Basic Pro to write in Basic and convert to Assembly
for a pic.
Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision? <<<
Mike Hardwick, for Decade Engineering -- <http://www.decadenet.com>
Manufacturer of the famous BOB-II Serial Video Text Display Module!
> I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10 of
his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
> .....
> Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?
I think that the next step is the following...
You begin to understand the Stamp and have some projects going. Because the
Stamp is a bit pricy for some projects you want to use a 'true'
microcontroller (meaning without an interpreter). And in combination with
this you find the speed of the Stamp to slow and you really need to use
interrupts....
So the solution is a microcontroller like the AVR and PIC. The BX24 and
BasicX aren't a solution because they are to expensive.
The easiest way is to buy the pbp compiler which uses the same syntax as the
stamp2.
Comments
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use Pic Basic Pro to write in· Basic and convert to Assembly
···· for a pic.
Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?·
Thanks,
John Bell
jababell@iu.net
The PIC is a natural step since the Stamp itself uses the PIC and there are several Basic compilers that are more or less compatible with the Stamp. However, if you are going to do assembly (and all the really cool things work better in assembler) you might want to consider the SX. The Parallax SX-Key gives you a really nice debugging environment for very little money. The fact that an SX at 50MHz is about the same as a PIC running at 200MHz doesn't hurt any either. On top of that, the SX has greatly simplified interrupt handling, etc.
Like most things, however, one size does not fit all. For example, if you want to hook up large amounts of external memory, maybe a 68HC12 or something similar would be of use. I have used the AVR but I wasn't impressed -- the parts are too hard to get and I personally didn't like the assembly language.
I've not been a big fan of what I have seen of the BasicX chips. If I want to embed Visual Basic I will go with a PC/104 card. The strength of the Stamp is that it is simple and inexpensive.
So, if you want to do "Stampish" things but you also want high speed, low cost, and interrupts, think about the SX. If you want access to lots of memory, etc. think about a "traditional" micro like a 68HCxx. If you want to replace a PC, don't -- use PC/104.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Al Williams
AWC
*8 channels of pulse output for servo control, PWM, etc.... http://www.al-williams.com/awce/pak8.htm
Original Message
From: Mom and Dad [noparse][[/noparse]mailto:jababell@iu.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:39 PM
To: basicstamps@egroups.com
Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] next step
I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10 of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use Pic Basic Pro to write in· Basic and convert to Assembly
···· for a pic.
Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?·
Thanks,
John Bell
jababell@iu.net
Thankyou for the input on PIC decision!
John Bell
Original Message
From: Al Williams <alw@al-williams.com>
To: basicstamps@egroups.com <basicstamps@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] next step
Hi John,
The PIC is a natural step since the Stamp itself uses the PIC and there are several Basic compilers that are more or less compatible with the Stamp. However, if you are going to do assembly (and all the really cool things work better in assembler) you might want to consider the SX. The Parallax SX-Key gives you a really nice debugging environment for very little money. The fact that an SX at 50MHz is about the same as a PIC running at 200MHz doesn't hurt any either. On top of that, the SX has greatly simplified interrupt handling, etc.
Like most things, however, one size does not fit all. For example, if you want to hook up large amounts of external memory, maybe a 68HC12 or something similar would be of use. I have used the AVR but I wasn't impressed -- the parts are too hard to get and I personally didn't like the assembly language.
I've not been a big fan of what I have seen of the BasicX chips. If I want to embed Visual Basic I will go with a PC/104 card. The strength of the Stamp is that it is simple and inexpensive.
So, if you want to do "Stampish" things but you also want high speed, low cost, and interrupts, think about the SX. If you want access to lots of memory, etc. think about a "traditional" micro like a 68HCxx. If you want to replace a PC, don't -- use PC/104.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Al Williams
AWC
*8 channels of pulse output for servo control, PWM, etc.... http://www.al-williams.com/awce/pak8.htm
Original Message
From: Mom and Dad [noparse][[/noparse]mailto:jababell@iu.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:39 PM
To: basicstamps@egroups.com
Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] next step
I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10 of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use Pic Basic Pro to write in· Basic and convert to Assembly
···· for a pic.
Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?·
Thanks,
John Bell
jababell@iu.net
Perhaps my experience isn't typical, but I *like* Atmel AVR chips,
especially by comparison with PICs. They use 16-bit code words, and offer a
simple, linear memory model. AVRs run 4X faster than PICs for the same
clock rate, consume a *lot* less power than Scenix SX chips, and the
assembly language isn't any more difficult than several others I've used.
You don't have to move data through a "W" (working) register. Even the
cheapest AVRs have interrupts and built-in EE memory, and all AVRs are
in-system re-programmable using a cheap printer port adapter cable. If you
want to use a BASIC compiler, try BASCOM-- There's a free version at
http://www.mcselec.com. And, NO, I don't work for Atmel! I've experienced
at least one major problem with AVR products-- The external memory
interface is a calamity in motion. Don't use it!
>>> I am considering the "next step" as Al williams mentioned in chpt. 10
of his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
Al, the conclusion I got from your book was that either use an SX or use
Pic Basic Pro to write in Basic and convert to Assembly
for a pic.
Any comments from Al and the group on this to help me decide are appreciated.
Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision? <<<
Mike Hardwick, for Decade Engineering -- <http://www.decadenet.com>
Manufacturer of the famous BOB-II Serial Video Text Display Module!
his fine book, i.e. moving to a PIC.
> .....
> Also how do the BX24, BasicX and Atmel AVR enter into this decision?
I think that the next step is the following...
You begin to understand the Stamp and have some projects going. Because the
Stamp is a bit pricy for some projects you want to use a 'true'
microcontroller (meaning without an interpreter). And in combination with
this you find the speed of the Stamp to slow and you really need to use
interrupts....
So the solution is a microcontroller like the AVR and PIC. The BX24 and
BasicX aren't a solution because they are to expensive.
The easiest way is to buy the pbp compiler which uses the same syntax as the
stamp2.
Just my 2 cents...