Switch from Stamp to AVR

Andy Goessling

Does anyone have some experience with making the switch from Stamp to AVR? I'm still planning on using my Stamp2 for easy prototyping but I would like to learn the AVR's. Any suggestions? Thanks
······························ Andy Goessling

cyberbiota

Andy-

Probably the easiest way to accomplish this is using BASCOM-AVR from MCS Electronics (http://www.mcselec.com). Mark Alberts has put a considerable amount of time and effort into making this a very powerful and user-friendly IDE/compiler for the AVR-series mcu's from Atmel. The language is similar to, but not identical to, P-BASIC. It also helps (alot!) if you have a bit of familiarity with the Atmel AVR Assembly language.

You might also consider going the Parallax Stamp-to-Microchip PIC route. The PICBasic Pro compiler from micro Engineering Labs, Inc (http://www.melabs.com/) uses an implementation of the BASIC language that is almost indistinguishable from P-BASIC. Microchip's PIC MCU's are the core processors for the BS-I and BS-II, so you have already used these chips.

The learning curve is a bit shorter if you go the PIC route, but it is a bit less expensive to go the AVR route. I use both, having found that the different offerings from Atmel and Microchip seem to fill slightly different niches. I still do all of my proto design using the Stamp, though. The design cycle is faster that way.

peter

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Peter C. Charles

Director, Research and Technology
CyberBiota, Incorporated
Peter.charles@cyberbiota.com
http://www.cyberbiota.com

Guenther Daubach

Andy,

another option would be to stay with the Stamps and the SX28/48/52 devices using SX/B to generate "native code" applications for the SXes. Although SX/B can not be 100% compatible to Stamp-BASIC, you will feel familiar very soon.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Greetings from Germany,

G

LoopyByteloose

When reading their documentation [noparse][[/noparse]about a year ago] one of the things that struck me odd about Amtel's AVRs is that Amtel seemed to not clearly know how much current they can source. They usually provide clear data on sink, but that is it.

When something is vague, I assume there is some bad side to the news.

So, if you are using robotics or other applications that require robust sourcing as well as sinking, the Ubicom SX is quite sturdy, the PIC seems less so, and Amtel isn't really sure.

Software code and speed aren't everything. The equipment has got to hold up to use and abuse.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
G. Herzog in Taiwan

Post Edited (Kramer) : 8/16/2005 1:45:46 PM GMT

cyberbiota

Kramer-

The ATmegas can source 20mA at 5 V from their IO pins (10mA at 3V). The sum of all ports should not exceed 400mA. This data can be found in the electrical characteristics section of the datasheets (granted, it is buried on page 240).

peter

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Peter C. Charles

Director, Research and Technology
CyberBiota, Incorporated
Peter.charles@cyberbiota.com
http://www.cyberbiota.com

LoopyByteloose

Thanks, I had looked at serveral places and in several Amtel documents. What I saw elsewhere most recently was the 10mA figure, but they didn't clarify the lower voltage. Admittedly, I look at the charts, not the text.

Obviously if you are driving a pulse or synthesizing an analog voltage, you really need the sourcing ability. Originally, having a higher sink capabablity could be worked out in peripheral logic. But now, the microcontroller is expected to stand without such support chips. I may be wrong, but PIC and Sx-Ubicom seem to design to that end.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
G. Herzog in Taiwan