OK I get the point..
I know everyone here loves stamps, but so do I! I'll sum everything
up the easy way so you can just read it all at once:
1. I think stamps are probably the best MCU solution around.
THey're small, fairly fast, and have a pretty good amount of
calculating power. However, for mundane/basic functions, it is more
cost effective to use PICs. If you needed to control 8 LED's and
were using too many pins already, would you buy a new stamp or just
get a PIC (or even a simple shift register!!). I support the stamps
and will continue to do so. Keep in mind though, the CPU in your
computer needs a Northbridge and Southbridge to control everything.
Without the northbridge, it wouldn't have access to memory, AGP,
etc. Without the southbridge, it wouldn't have PCI/ISA, IDE, SCSI,
USB, etc. Just imagine using a Pentium4/Athlon for all 3 chips!!
2. I am new to PICBasic, so I didn't know there were 2 different
versions. Once I get more money I will probably either buy the
MELabs PICBasic Pro, or subscribe to www.compilestop.com's compiler
service (includes PicBasic Pro, PicBasic standard, and a few other
ASM compilers). Also I think there may be something wrong with the
version I have. It came on a CD, but it wont let me write much code
and I have to rename files to get support for the other chips.
I don't know why people have to make such a big deal out of this.
It's not like I said the stamps are Smile or something. I was just
trying to make a point that in some cases (like purpose-made support
chips) the pics are more suited for the job. Also I tend to get a
bit nervous when potentially expensive software discs become
broken/damaged, but I'm starting to think that the PICBasic disk I
have is a demo or something...
Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for all of the support I've
gotten in the past!
up the easy way so you can just read it all at once:
1. I think stamps are probably the best MCU solution around.
THey're small, fairly fast, and have a pretty good amount of
calculating power. However, for mundane/basic functions, it is more
cost effective to use PICs. If you needed to control 8 LED's and
were using too many pins already, would you buy a new stamp or just
get a PIC (or even a simple shift register!!). I support the stamps
and will continue to do so. Keep in mind though, the CPU in your
computer needs a Northbridge and Southbridge to control everything.
Without the northbridge, it wouldn't have access to memory, AGP,
etc. Without the southbridge, it wouldn't have PCI/ISA, IDE, SCSI,
USB, etc. Just imagine using a Pentium4/Athlon for all 3 chips!!
2. I am new to PICBasic, so I didn't know there were 2 different
versions. Once I get more money I will probably either buy the
MELabs PICBasic Pro, or subscribe to www.compilestop.com's compiler
service (includes PicBasic Pro, PicBasic standard, and a few other
ASM compilers). Also I think there may be something wrong with the
version I have. It came on a CD, but it wont let me write much code
and I have to rename files to get support for the other chips.
I don't know why people have to make such a big deal out of this.
It's not like I said the stamps are Smile or something. I was just
trying to make a point that in some cases (like purpose-made support
chips) the pics are more suited for the job. Also I tend to get a
bit nervous when potentially expensive software discs become
broken/damaged, but I'm starting to think that the PICBasic disk I
have is a demo or something...
Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for all of the support I've
gotten in the past!
Comments
post so no comment regarding that.
I love my stamp, but at 50 bucks a pop I only use it in a design when
absolutely necessary. Oh, I am tempted. In so many instances it would
be easier to use the stamp. Luckily, my electronics background is
such that I never resort to using my 50 dollar microcontroller to
accomplish what could easily be done with 2 or three dollars worth of
discrete components.
But alot of guys do.
The stamp is electronic component. A PIC is also an electronic
component. What we do is electronics.... I do not have a problem with
this, but I have gotten into it (here, in this group) with people who
do.
Thing is, this is a "Basicstamp" group. Some would be more
comfortable if the postings were confined to stamp code and apps.
What we do is electronics. Topics of this type should be encouraged,
the stamp can not do anything by itself.
I bit my tongue many times reading of the adventures of people
desperate to make their stamp do what could be done with a few
dollars worth of discrete parts...
The stamp is not an electronic cornicopia, not the "horn of plenty".
It is a marvelous device that, when necessary, has no equal. Still,
if I could get the job done with a less expensive PIC I wouldn't
hesitate to do so. It's all the same thing...
My two cents.
Regards
Rich
AA2DN
--- In basicstamps@y..., pyromaneyakk@h... wrote:
> I know everyone here loves stamps, but so do I! I'll sum
everything
> up the easy way so you can just read it all at once:
>
> 1. I think stamps are probably the best MCU solution around.
> THey're small, fairly fast, and have a pretty good amount of
> calculating power. However, for mundane/basic functions, it is
more
> cost effective to use PICs. If you needed to control 8 LED's and
> were using too many pins already, would you buy a new stamp or just
> get a PIC (or even a simple shift register!!). I support the
stamps
> and will continue to do so. Keep in mind though, the CPU in your
> computer needs a Northbridge and Southbridge to control everything.
> Without the northbridge, it wouldn't have access to memory, AGP,
> etc. Without the southbridge, it wouldn't have PCI/ISA, IDE, SCSI,
> USB, etc. Just imagine using a Pentium4/Athlon for all 3 chips!!
>
> 2. I am new to PICBasic, so I didn't know there were 2 different
> versions. Once I get more money I will probably either buy the
> MELabs PICBasic Pro, or subscribe to www.compilestop.com's compiler
> service (includes PicBasic Pro, PicBasic standard, and a few other
> ASM compilers). Also I think there may be something wrong with the
> version I have. It came on a CD, but it wont let me write much
code
> and I have to rename files to get support for the other chips.
>
> I don't know why people have to make such a big deal out of this.
> It's not like I said the stamps are Smile or something. I was just
> trying to make a point that in some cases (like purpose-made
support
> chips) the pics are more suited for the job. Also I tend to get a
> bit nervous when potentially expensive software discs become
> broken/damaged, but I'm starting to think that the PICBasic disk I
> have is a demo or something...
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for all of the support I've
> gotten in the past!
>I bit my tongue many times reading of the adventures of people
>desperate to make their stamp do what could be done with a few
>dollars worth of discrete parts...
Me too, esp when it is literally a few discrete parts. But for more
complicated stuff it's a great way to get up and running quickly so the
hardware surrounding the controller can be debugged. Later on it can be
put on a PIC if one has the need, the talent, and the software/hardware
tools to do so, and the STAMP recycled to the next project.
>The stamp is not an electronic cornicopia, not the "horn of plenty".
>It is a marvelous device that, when necessary, has no equal. Still,
>if I could get the job done with a less expensive PIC I wouldn't
>hesitate to do so. It's all the same thing...
It isn't all the same at all. The PIC can take a lot more talent to
program so expense is not the deciding factor for many. And the cost of
good tools, such as the MELabs compiler, is another sticking point for
some. And I bet the guy who wants to use his STAMP to blink a few LEDs in
a certain order is (or eventually will be) probably swapping that same
STAMP back and forth with several other projects, a BOE, an Activity Board,
etc.
I bet you have a few reprogrammable PICS for your development work,
followed by burning a much cheaper nonreprogrammable part... right?
Jim H
Of course you're correct. I do sometimes get carried away.
Regards
Rich
AA2DN
--- In basicstamps@y..., Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@s...> wrote:
> At 11:30 08/07/01, iceninevt@y... wrote:
>
> >I bit my tongue many times reading of the adventures of people
> >desperate to make their stamp do what could be done with a few
> >dollars worth of discrete parts...
>
> Me too, esp when it is literally a few discrete parts. But for
more
> complicated stuff it's a great way to get up and running quickly so
the
> hardware surrounding the controller can be debugged. Later on it
can be
> put on a PIC if one has the need, the talent, and the
software/hardware
> tools to do so, and the STAMP recycled to the next project.
>
> >The stamp is not an electronic cornicopia, not the "horn of
plenty".
> >It is a marvelous device that, when necessary, has no equal. Still,
> >if I could get the job done with a less expensive PIC I wouldn't
> >hesitate to do so. It's all the same thing...
>
> It isn't all the same at all. The PIC can take a lot more talent
to
> program so expense is not the deciding factor for many. And the
cost of
> good tools, such as the MELabs compiler, is another sticking point
for
> some. And I bet the guy who wants to use his STAMP to blink a few
LEDs in
> a certain order is (or eventually will be) probably swapping that
same
> STAMP back and forth with several other projects, a BOE, an
Activity Board,
> etc.
>
> I bet you have a few reprogrammable PICS for your development work,
> followed by burning a much cheaper nonreprogrammable part... right?
>
>
> Jim H