8051 Microcontroller vs Basic Stamp
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
Why or why not would I use a 8051 Microcontroller instead of a Basic
Stamp. Is one more fitted or durable than the other?
BasicStamp seems so simple yet it seems to accomplish as much as a
full Microcontroller like the 8051. At least first apperances.
Im trying to decide which to spend more time learning.
My applications are perhaps Home Automation or Automobile Automation.
Thanks
Stamp. Is one more fitted or durable than the other?
BasicStamp seems so simple yet it seems to accomplish as much as a
full Microcontroller like the 8051. At least first apperances.
Im trying to decide which to spend more time learning.
My applications are perhaps Home Automation or Automobile Automation.
Thanks
Comments
Original Message
From: <billforgey@y...>
To: <basicstamps@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 9:20 PM
Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] 8051 Microcontroller vs Basic Stamp
> Why or why not would I use a 8051 Microcontroller instead of a Basic
> Stamp. Is one more fitted or durable than the other?
Neither is really (more durable), and the choice of one over the other pretty
much
depends on the end application requirement.
The Stamp is by far the easiest platform to start on, and the vast amount of
application
code, schematics, etc,, makes getting started really simple. If you're
interested in
learning the 8051, I recommend you grab Myke Predkos "Programming and
Customizing the 8051 Microcontroller". Great book on the 8051.....
> BasicStamp seems so simple yet it seems to accomplish as much as a
> full Microcontroller like the 8051. At least first apperances.
Read the Stamp manual, then try Mykes book on the 8051. That first appearnce
will
change pretty quickly. The 8051's great, but the learning curve is much higher
than
with the Stamp. There are things you can do with either one that the other can't
touch..
> Im trying to decide which to spend more time learning.
> My applications are perhaps Home Automation or Automobile Automation.
I would start with the Stamp, or possibly a combination of the Stamp with the
PicBasic
Pro compiler. They are very similar, and both simple to start with. From there -
I would
venture into the 8051 with assembly or even one of the 8051 BASIC compilers.
PIC, Stamp, 8051, etc,, it pretty much depends on what you're trying to do, how
much
time you have to learn, and how much you can afford to spend on the initial
development
platform & materials. The Stamp is still the best choice for entry level
microcontroller
programming, and Parallax support is second to none when you're in a bind. This
list
is one heck of a resource also.
Regards,
Bruce
webmaster@r...
http://www.rentron.com
ability to greatly expand the I/O using very inexpensive chips. ·Another is
it's ability to use up to 64K of memory for application, program and user use.
If you use the 8051 with assembly code it runs a lot faster than the normal
BS2, however I am not sure about the SX type of Basic Stamp, it might be as
fast or faster. ·I use the 11.9xxx MHz crystal with the 8052 BASIC that I
have been using. ·Also the 80C52 BASIC that I am using is much less expensive
than the Stamp however you do have to put other support chips to use it and
they are cheap anyway.
If the Basic Stamp has the I/O you need it is a LOT easier to use than the
8051/52 but is not a versatile.
Hope this helps some,
Randy A.[/font]
>Stamp. Is one more fitted or durable than the other?
An 8051-family chip can access more memory. It has more internal timers, a
hardware UART for serial communications, and several interrupt sources.
There are variants with all kinds of extra capabilities: high speed, USB
interface, dual UARTs, etc.
But the Stamp is very easy to use and is powerful enough for many projects.
The Basic version of the 8051 is the 8052-Basic, which predates the Stamp
by many years and is still available in various forms from different
sources. My 8052-Basic page has info:
http://www.lvr.com/microc.htm
If you're starting out, I'd recommend the Stamp over the 8052-Basic, unless
you have a compelling reason to use the 8052.
Jan Axelson
http://www.lvr.com
jan@l...
> >Stamp. Is one more fitted or durable than the other?
>
Jan has raised some interesting points concerning the advantages of some of
the 8051 family. I would like to add that there is an excellent basic
compiler (windows based) that can program the ATMEL 8051 range of chips.
The compiler is available in a demo version (i.e. free) with the only
limitation of the software being that it will only program up to 2k (more
with the full version). The software is very easy to use. I have managed
to convert a number of programs written for the BS2 to the 8051 with minimal
effort. You can by a programmer with all the bells and whistles for about
US$50 pre-assembled. Or you can make a simple programmer for a few dollars.
More info is available from http://www.dontronics.com. I have no
affiliation with the site. I a am customer only.
check out, for the exact pages.
http://www.dontronics.com/runavr.html
http://www.dontronics.com/dt006.html
Martin Bleasel
martin.bleasel@d...
>
Original Message
> From: Jan Axelson [noparse]/noparse]SMTP:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=avWX7qZ0rrMtqBQtoZowLSUK9llXBRSP7N6ymrOUbefJ_mFTv4bX-WRERK0w2bz-qw]jan@l...[/url
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2001 1:46
> To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Re: 8051 Microcontroller vs Basic Stamp
>
>
>
> An 8051-family chip can access more memory. It has more internal timers, a
>
> hardware UART for serial communications, and several interrupt sources.
> There are variants with all kinds of extra capabilities: high speed, USB
> interface, dual UARTs, etc.
>
> But the Stamp is very easy to use and is powerful enough for many
> projects.
>
> The Basic version of the 8051 is the 8052-Basic, which predates the Stamp
> by many years and is still available in various forms from different
> sources. My 8052-Basic page has info:
>
> http://www.lvr.com/microc.htm
>
> If you're starting out, I'd recommend the Stamp over the 8052-Basic,
> unless
> you have a compelling reason to use the 8052.
>
> Jan Axelson
> http://www.lvr.com
> jan@l...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>