Microprocessor choice
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
I think most ppl feel that the support and ease of use for the stamp is
more important than any hardware advantages of the Atom package or the
other Stamp knockoffs. In my experience a well supported product is vastly
more useful than one without support. If nothing else, the Stamp has
incredible support and info, both from Parallax and from the Stamp
community, esp. this list. If you have a strong electronics background and
don't want to work with the stamp, I would advise going directly to working
with PICs, as they offer a much wider range of hardware options, are much
faster, and are significantly cheaper. The disadvantages of using PICs is
that you need a compiler, and a hardware programmer to program them, and
they're not as easy for the novice.
For a dated, but useful discussion of Stamp vs Pic try this link here >
http://www.phanderson.com/stamp/stamp-pic.html
Also check around on that guys site for more info.
http://www.phanderson.com
HTH
>Besides support and history is there nay other reason to select the
>BS2 over the Atom package. Whats the deal on the compliier that atom
>offers. Does parallex ofter a compiler. Does the BS2 support floating
>point math or have an onboard ADC as the atom does. Are there any
>other controller manufactures on the market besides Atom and
>Parallex. If you havent guessed by now I in the market for a
>microcontroller. I have a strong electroniics background inculding
>microprocesser. Any input would be most appreciated.
>
>
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and
>Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
more important than any hardware advantages of the Atom package or the
other Stamp knockoffs. In my experience a well supported product is vastly
more useful than one without support. If nothing else, the Stamp has
incredible support and info, both from Parallax and from the Stamp
community, esp. this list. If you have a strong electronics background and
don't want to work with the stamp, I would advise going directly to working
with PICs, as they offer a much wider range of hardware options, are much
faster, and are significantly cheaper. The disadvantages of using PICs is
that you need a compiler, and a hardware programmer to program them, and
they're not as easy for the novice.
For a dated, but useful discussion of Stamp vs Pic try this link here >
http://www.phanderson.com/stamp/stamp-pic.html
Also check around on that guys site for more info.
http://www.phanderson.com
HTH
>Besides support and history is there nay other reason to select the
>BS2 over the Atom package. Whats the deal on the compliier that atom
>offers. Does parallex ofter a compiler. Does the BS2 support floating
>point math or have an onboard ADC as the atom does. Are there any
>other controller manufactures on the market besides Atom and
>Parallex. If you havent guessed by now I in the market for a
>microcontroller. I have a strong electroniics background inculding
>microprocesser. Any input would be most appreciated.
>
>
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and
>Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Comments
BS2 over the Atom package. Whats the deal on the compliier that atom
offers. Does parallex ofter a compiler. Does the BS2 support floating
point math or have an onboard ADC as the atom does. Are there any
other controller manufactures on the market besides Atom and
Parallex. If you havent guessed by now I in the market for a
microcontroller. I have a strong electroniics background inculding
microprocesser. Any input would be most appreciated.
dstyles669_48218 wrote:Besides support and history is there nay other reason to
select the
BS2 over the Atom package. Whats the deal on the compliier that atom
offers. Does parallex ofter a compiler. Does the BS2 support floating
point math or have an onboard ADC as the atom does. Are there any
other controller manufactures on the market besides Atom and
Parallex. If you havent guessed by now I in the market for a
microcontroller. I have a strong electroniics background inculding
microprocesser. Any input would be most appreciated.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and Body of
the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
someone from Atom spamming the list to me.
Original Message
> Besides support and history is there nay other reason to select the
> BS2 over the Atom package. Whats the deal on the compliier that atom
> offers. Does parallex ofter a compiler. Does the BS2 support floating
> point math or have an onboard ADC as the atom does. Are there any
> other controller manufactures on the market besides Atom and
> Parallex. If you havent guessed by now I in the market for a
> microcontroller. I have a strong electroniics background inculding
> microprocesser. Any input would be most appreciated.
raoul@c... writes:
> http://www.phanderson.com/stamp/stamp-pic.html
>
thanks for the direction...and opinion
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
After you get used to it, then you could possibly expand into a BASICX or
Atom MCU as they are pin compatible with the Basic Stamp, or just jump into
the more powerful MCU's like the Atmel AVR's.
The Basic stamp though has lots of support, documentation and books written
about or using it. The other have less to little or nothing.
The OOPIC is a advanced chip, little to no support. Hardly anyone to ask
questions of. I see a lot of guys pushing the OOPIC but I don't think any
of them actually have the chip or are really using it.
Then later when you get more serious you can look into the ATMEL AVR series
MCU's as they have tremendous support and help wuth the chips
www.avrfreaks.net
There are a lot of different MCU's out there, but the trick is whether they
have any support, user groups or anything to help you should you need it.
Original Message
From: dstyles669@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=_Ks730r67FZgpCnWm_ADOoSmlrDYbPnxq3tuuz-voifVBlyfSShRKLiToD1g3OqZiC8pdE3NXcyfsDn_-w]dstyles669@a...[/url
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:35 AM
To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
Just looking for info before laying the money down...paranoid
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and
Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
assembly and C with the appropriate compiler. Is it faster, or better
architecture. I'd actually be very interested in hearing what people's low
level chip preferences are and why. I just started with PICs this summer and
have to say that the level of support is awesome. The Piclist is a very
active mailing list, and the site is full of good documentation.
nick
on 27/8/02 6:57 AM, Earl Bollinger at earlwbollinger@a... wrote:
> I'd get a Basic Stamp and get my feet wet with it.
> After you get used to it, then you could possibly expand into a BASICX or
> Atom MCU as they are pin compatible with the Basic Stamp, or just jump into
> the more powerful MCU's like the Atmel AVR's.
> The Basic stamp though has lots of support, documentation and books written
> about or using it. The other have less to little or nothing.
> The OOPIC is a advanced chip, little to no support. Hardly anyone to ask
> questions of. I see a lot of guys pushing the OOPIC but I don't think any
> of them actually have the chip or are really using it.
>
> Then later when you get more serious you can look into the ATMEL AVR series
> MCU's as they have tremendous support and help wuth the chips
> www.avrfreaks.net
>
> There are a lot of different MCU's out there, but the trick is whether they
> have any support, user groups or anything to help you should you need it.
>
>
>
Original Message
> From: dstyles669@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=zd1ZSOtjwvXCCz1DVlaK-oRnguupgXxdgzb0RIY4IOpWrfv1yofRc4WIZSlBVa1gAbfvE--UKUVDxPE]dstyles669@a...[/url
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:35 AM
> To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
>
>
> Just looking for info before laying the money down...paranoid
>
>
> [noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and
> Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and Body
> of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
You can program both the PICmicro MCU and the AVR in either assembly or C.
For the PICmicro MCU, I recommend HT-Soft's (http://www.htsoft.com) "PICC
Lite" compiler which is free for the PIC16F84 and PIC16F627.
As to which is "better", you will get a *lot* of differing opinions on this.
Personally, I prefer programming the PICmicro MCU in assembler - while it
has a smaller instruction set, the architecture is a lot more "orthogonal"
which means that you can do a lot of really clever things with the different
registers built into it. I'm comfortable programming the AVR in assembler
and you can do many of the same tricks as the PICmicro MCU, but you cannot
access all the registers as easily as the PICmicro MCU and not all registers
are accessible by the same instructions. The long and the short of it is, I
can program a PICmicro MCU in assembler without an instruction data sheet in
front of me, which I find is impossible with an AVR because of the
inconsistencies.
The AVR is better designed for compilers than the low-level and mid-range
(PIC16C/Fxx) PICmicro MCU's. The PIC18C/Fxx2 has a better architecture for
compiler writers - it also has a more easily accessible register
organization. The PIC18C/Fxx2 architecture is probably 2+ years away from
having a wide range of part numbers that can be worked with.
Getting away from the "religious" aspects of architectures, there are some
more practical points to consider.
Both microcontrollers can have application code burnt into them using
inexpensive and simple programmers available over the Internet.
Both microcontrollers have Integrated Development Environments (with built
in Simulators) available from their manufacturers.
For me, the most significant difference lies in availability. The PICmicro
MCU is available essentially everywhere in the world. The AVR is pretty
good (although not as widespread). Depending on where you are, the AVR
might be cheaper or the PICmicro MCU might be cheaper. A few years ago,
Atmel decided to suspend AVR production in favor of straight Flash chips.
AVRs were unavailable for 18+ months and the company support really dried
up.
Suspending AVR production caused most hobbyists (and many companies) to
avoid the AVR and the interest and support really hasn't returned.
I think this is why you are seeing the PICmicro MCU being a lot more popular
than the AVR and the overriding reason why I would recommend the PICmicro
MCU over the AVR. I think Atmel has a lot of work to do to make people feel
comfortable that the AVR will be continue to be supported by the company.
I'm sure I've said a number of things here that are contentious, so I'm
hoping that some other people will put in their opinions.
myke
Original Message
From: "Nick Stedman" <nickstedman@s...>
To: <basicstamps@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
> How does the AVR compare with PICs? I notice that you can program the AVR
in
> assembly and C with the appropriate compiler. Is it faster, or better
> architecture. I'd actually be very interested in hearing what people's low
> level chip preferences are and why. I just started with PICs this summer
and
> have to say that the level of support is awesome. The Piclist is a very
> active mailing list, and the site is full of good documentation.
>
> nick
>
>
> on 27/8/02 6:57 AM, Earl Bollinger at earlwbollinger@a... wrote:
>
> > I'd get a Basic Stamp and get my feet wet with it.
> > After you get used to it, then you could possibly expand into a BASICX
or
> > Atom MCU as they are pin compatible with the Basic Stamp, or just jump
into
> > the more powerful MCU's like the Atmel AVR's.
> > The Basic stamp though has lots of support, documentation and books
written
> > about or using it. The other have less to little or nothing.
> > The OOPIC is a advanced chip, little to no support. Hardly anyone to ask
> > questions of. I see a lot of guys pushing the OOPIC but I don't think
any
> > of them actually have the chip or are really using it.
> >
> > Then later when you get more serious you can look into the ATMEL AVR
series
> > MCU's as they have tremendous support and help wuth the chips
> > www.avrfreaks.net
> >
> > There are a lot of different MCU's out there, but the trick is whether
they
> > have any support, user groups or anything to help you should you need
it.
> >
> >
> >
Original Message
> > From: dstyles669@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=FcQPjrQde36n-tC0-J3O8LKWsUbuLQX_LxEI108mMuvZvHHsLLPr5p1l4mDcV3U7LL822f54NtI]dstyles669@a...[/url
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:35 AM
> > To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
> >
> >
> > Just looking for info before laying the money down...paranoid
> >
> >
> > [noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject
and
> > Body of the message will be ignored.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject
and Body
> > of the message will be ignored.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and
Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
I've spent time recently with Myke's book "Programming and customizing
PICmicro microctrollers" (2nd ed) McGraw Hill, 2000, and recommend it to
anyone exploring the PIC world. As to C versus assembly, I generally
use and prefer C. Increased capacity of MCU microcontrollers implies
that choosing one with sufficient memory to accommodate a C program will
be the fastest route to a working prototype, at least in my somewhat
limited experience.
Dennis O'Leary
Original Message
From: myke predko [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=4SVWzFPXVkTfMzeBdZ-RNmsaj8rYZml6Rvdte3BOhxLDivbqAIc2GtwOQJGG-OPQdGM0-CzoxUDr]myke@p...[/url
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:29 AM
To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
Hi Nick,
You can program both the PICmicro MCU and the AVR in either assembly or
C. For the PICmicro MCU, I recommend HT-Soft's (http://www.htsoft.com)
"PICC Lite" compiler which is free for the PIC16F84 and PIC16F627.
As to which is "better", you will get a *lot* of differing opinions on
this. Personally, I prefer programming the PICmicro MCU in assembler -
while it has a smaller instruction set, the architecture is a lot more
"orthogonal" which means that you can do a lot of really clever things
with the different registers built into it. I'm comfortable programming
the AVR in assembler and you can do many of the same tricks as the
PICmicro MCU, but you cannot access all the registers as easily as the
PICmicro MCU and not all registers are accessible by the same
instructions. The long and the short of it is, I can program a PICmicro
MCU in assembler without an instruction data sheet in front of me, which
I find is impossible with an AVR because of the inconsistencies.
The AVR is better designed for compilers than the low-level and
mid-range
(PIC16C/Fxx) PICmicro MCU's. The PIC18C/Fxx2 has a better architecture
for compiler writers - it also has a more easily accessible register
organization. The PIC18C/Fxx2 architecture is probably 2+ years away
from having a wide range of part numbers that can be worked with.
Getting away from the "religious" aspects of architectures, there are
some more practical points to consider.
Both microcontrollers can have application code burnt into them using
inexpensive and simple programmers available over the Internet.
Both microcontrollers have Integrated Development Environments (with
built in Simulators) available from their manufacturers.
For me, the most significant difference lies in availability. The
PICmicro MCU is available essentially everywhere in the world. The AVR
is pretty good (although not as widespread). Depending on where you
are, the AVR might be cheaper or the PICmicro MCU might be cheaper. A
few years ago, Atmel decided to suspend AVR production in favor of
straight Flash chips. AVRs were unavailable for 18+ months and the
company support really dried up.
Suspending AVR production caused most hobbyists (and many companies) to
avoid the AVR and the interest and support really hasn't returned.
I think this is why you are seeing the PICmicro MCU being a lot more
popular than the AVR and the overriding reason why I would recommend the
PICmicro MCU over the AVR. I think Atmel has a lot of work to do to
make people feel comfortable that the AVR will be continue to be
supported by the company.
I'm sure I've said a number of things here that are contentious, so I'm
hoping that some other people will put in their opinions.
myke
Original Message
From: "Nick Stedman" <nickstedman@s...>
To: <basicstamps@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
> How does the AVR compare with PICs? I notice that you can program the
> AVR
in
> assembly and C with the appropriate compiler. Is it faster, or better
> architecture. I'd actually be very interested in hearing what people's
> low level chip preferences are and why. I just started with PICs this
> summer
and
> have to say that the level of support is awesome. The Piclist is a
> very active mailing list, and the site is full of good documentation.
>
> nick
>
>
> on 27/8/02 6:57 AM, Earl Bollinger at earlwbollinger@a... wrote:
>
> > I'd get a Basic Stamp and get my feet wet with it.
> > After you get used to it, then you could possibly expand into a
> > BASICX
or
> > Atom MCU as they are pin compatible with the Basic Stamp, or just
> > jump
into
> > the more powerful MCU's like the Atmel AVR's.
> > The Basic stamp though has lots of support, documentation and books
written
> > about or using it. The other have less to little or nothing. The
> > OOPIC is a advanced chip, little to no support. Hardly anyone to ask
> > questions of. I see a lot of guys pushing the OOPIC but I don't
> > think
any
> > of them actually have the chip or are really using it.
> >
> > Then later when you get more serious you can look into the ATMEL AVR
series
> > MCU's as they have tremendous support and help wuth the chips
> > www.avrfreaks.net
> >
> > There are a lot of different MCU's out there, but the trick is
> > whether
they
> > have any support, user groups or anything to help you should you
> > need
it.
> >
> >
> >
Original Message
> > From: dstyles669@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=R0Mw8abue9wcYI2JD3dOW4n59bYxRevOeADdgagP5iPdpLvyG8hGV-fQJQ38DaRo8vRyO7rVx38]dstyles669@a...[/url
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:35 AM
> > To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
> >
> >
> > Just looking for info before laying the money down...paranoid
> >
> >
> > [noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
> > Subject
and
> > Body of the message will be ignored.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
> > Subject
and Body
> > of the message will be ignored.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject
> and
Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject
and Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
another one of his books, of which I have a few.
Original Message
From: "Dennis P. O'Leary" <doleary@e...>
To: <basicstamps@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: August 27, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: RE: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
It's great to see Myke Predko's considerable expertise expressed
here.
I've spent time recently with Myke's book "Programming and
customizing
PICmicro microctrollers" (2nd ed) McGraw Hill, 2000, and
recommend it to
anyone exploring the PIC world. As to C versus assembly, I
generally
use and prefer C. Increased capacity of MCU microcontrollers
implies
that choosing one with sufficient memory to accommodate a C
program will
be the fastest route to a working prototype, at least in my
somewhat
limited experience.
Dennis O'Leary
Original Message
From: myke predko [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=bXEbBlwWNYWsQgGyRZ_1YvY7WU63HvfSaFKZvbXyYlDC02hV8z_tC9yh3dlxR7OJBP7L1RFp3Kw]myke@p...[/url
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:29 AM
To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
Hi Nick,
You can program both the PICmicro MCU and the AVR in either
assembly or
C. For the PICmicro MCU, I recommend HT-Soft's
(http://www.htsoft.com)
"PICC Lite" compiler which is free for the PIC16F84 and
PIC16F627.
As to which is "better", you will get a *lot* of differing
opinions on
this. Personally, I prefer programming the PICmicro MCU in
assembler -
while it has a smaller instruction set, the architecture is a lot
more
"orthogonal" which means that you can do a lot of really clever
things
with the different registers built into it. I'm comfortable
programming
the AVR in assembler and you can do many of the same tricks as
the
PICmicro MCU, but you cannot access all the registers as easily
as the
PICmicro MCU and not all registers are accessible by the same
instructions. The long and the short of it is, I can program a
PICmicro
MCU in assembler without an instruction data sheet in front of
me, which
I find is impossible with an AVR because of the inconsistencies.
The AVR is better designed for compilers than the low-level and
mid-range
(PIC16C/Fxx) PICmicro MCU's. The PIC18C/Fxx2 has a better
architecture
for compiler writers - it also has a more easily accessible
register
organization. The PIC18C/Fxx2 architecture is probably 2+ years
away
from having a wide range of part numbers that can be worked with.
Getting away from the "religious" aspects of architectures, there
are
some more practical points to consider.
Both microcontrollers can have application code burnt into them
using
inexpensive and simple programmers available over the Internet.
Both microcontrollers have Integrated Development Environments
(with
built in Simulators) available from their manufacturers.
For me, the most significant difference lies in availability.
The
PICmicro MCU is available essentially everywhere in the world.
The AVR
is pretty good (although not as widespread). Depending on where
you
are, the AVR might be cheaper or the PICmicro MCU might be
cheaper. A
few years ago, Atmel decided to suspend AVR production in favor
of
straight Flash chips. AVRs were unavailable for 18+ months and
the
company support really dried up.
Suspending AVR production caused most hobbyists (and many
companies) to
avoid the AVR and the interest and support really hasn't
returned.
I think this is why you are seeing the PICmicro MCU being a lot
more
popular than the AVR and the overriding reason why I would
recommend the
PICmicro MCU over the AVR. I think Atmel has a lot of work to do
to
make people feel comfortable that the AVR will be continue to be
supported by the company.
I'm sure I've said a number of things here that are contentious,
so I'm
hoping that some other people will put in their opinions.
myke
Original Message
From: "Nick Stedman" <nickstedman@s...>
To: <basicstamps@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
> How does the AVR compare with PICs? I notice that you can
program the
> AVR
in
> assembly and C with the appropriate compiler. Is it faster, or
better
> architecture. I'd actually be very interested in hearing what
people's
> low level chip preferences are and why. I just started with
PICs this
> summer
and
> have to say that the level of support is awesome. The Piclist
is a
> very active mailing list, and the site is full of good
documentation.
>
> nick
>
>
> on 27/8/02 6:57 AM, Earl Bollinger at earlwbollinger@a...
wrote:
>
> > I'd get a Basic Stamp and get my feet wet with it.
> > After you get used to it, then you could possibly expand into
a
> > BASICX
or
> > Atom MCU as they are pin compatible with the Basic Stamp, or
just
> > jump
into
> > the more powerful MCU's like the Atmel AVR's.
> > The Basic stamp though has lots of support, documentation and
books
written
> > about or using it. The other have less to little or nothing.
The
> > OOPIC is a advanced chip, little to no support. Hardly anyone
to ask
> > questions of. I see a lot of guys pushing the OOPIC but I
don't
> > think
any
> > of them actually have the chip or are really using it.
> >
> > Then later when you get more serious you can look into the
ATMEL AVR
series
> > MCU's as they have tremendous support and help wuth the chips
> > www.avrfreaks.net
> >
> > There are a lot of different MCU's out there, but the trick
is
> > whether
they
> > have any support, user groups or anything to help you should
you
> > need
it.
> >
> >
> >
Original Message
> > From: dstyles669@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=1zYQ12Z_zAcOo51mh4h52xPpU52UZRUBjqNLQHhR7NvugIa-JdJhP_2kYRJke1jUaFMBfOrYxoVI]dstyles669@a...[/url
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:35 AM
> > To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Microprocessor choice
> >
> >
> > Just looking for info before laying the money down...paranoid
> >
> >
> > [noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
> > Subject
and
> > Body of the message will be ignored.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
> > Subject
and Body
> > of the message will be ignored.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
Subject
> and
Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
Subject
and Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the
Subject and Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/