Looking for Microcontroller Recommendations

[Nico Coesel]

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:02:30 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4b520c58.595258812@news.planet.nl>:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:35:49 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.

But be advised: as soon as you think 'I need 2 PICs for this project'
it is time to dump the PIC and learn to use a completely different
microcontroller. For more complicated projects using a PIC is like
eating soup with chopsticks. PIC gets you started real fast but it
also runs out of air real fast.

What applications have you had to implement where a 40-80 MHz 32-bit
MIPS processor with 512M of flash is so woefully inadequate?

That is not a PIC. That is a PIC32! A whole different beast. If you
like your sanity, I wouldn't program those in assembly though (google
'MIPS one delay slot').

Sice when is a PIC32 not a PIC,
of course it is.

Because Microchip says so? PIC32 is Microchip's answer to the many ARM
devices flooding the market these days. They simply want a piece of
the action. It is a neat marketing trick to say a PIC32 is like a
PIC16/18 but in reality a PIC32 is very similar to any ARM based
microcontroller. Only Microchip decided to use a MIPS cpu instead of
an ARM cpu. Its a good thing though that Microchip didn't try to
invent yet another proprietary instruction set. Now you can use plain
GCC (from sourceforgery for example) and Eclipse to get started.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Nico Coesel]

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:36:41 +0100, Falk Willberg
Faweglassenlk@falk-willberg.de> wrote:

RogerN wrote:
...
That would be a nice microcontroller project, use a temperature
sensor and RTCC, if it's freezing out, start the car so many minutes before
the end of shift, the colder it is, the more warm up time is allowed.

Are you really going to waste 50% gas by blowing warm air (and harmful
gases) out of the exhaust, torture the engine by running it cold and
idle for minutes?

50%? The car isn't "tortured" by running it at idle. OTOH, it isn't
good running a car at high speed until it's warmed some. The car
needs to be started anyway. It may "waste" a little gas by idling a
*little* longer than normal.

Why not use an auxiliary heater and control this with a micro?
That would be a smart approach.

With what are you going to power this "heater". Electricity (from
where?) rather than waste heat?

There are special heaters for this purpose. They heat the engine
coolant and can also heat the interior. Ofcourse they use fuel but it
is a lot better than letting the engine run idle.

http://www.webasto.us/home/en/homepage.html


--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:46:17 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4b52475b.610359265@news.planet.nl>:

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:02:30 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4b520c58.595258812@news.planet.nl>:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:35:49 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.

But be advised: as soon as you think 'I need 2 PICs for this project'
it is time to dump the PIC and learn to use a completely different
microcontroller. For more complicated projects using a PIC is like
eating soup with chopsticks. PIC gets you started real fast but it
also runs out of air real fast.

What applications have you had to implement where a 40-80 MHz 32-bit
MIPS processor with 512M of flash is so woefully inadequate?

That is not a PIC. That is a PIC32! A whole different beast. If you
like your sanity, I wouldn't program those in assembly though (google
'MIPS one delay slot').

Sice when is a PIC32 not a PIC,
of course it is.

Because Microchip says so?

It is even spelled 'PIC'32

PIC32 is Microchip's answer to the many ARM
devices flooding the market these days. They simply want a piece of
the action. It is a neat marketing trick to say a PIC32 is like a
PIC16/18 but in reality a PIC32 is very similar to any ARM based
microcontroller. Only Microchip decided to use a MIPS cpu instead of
an ARM cpu. Its a good thing though that Microchip didn't try to
invent yet another proprietary instruction set. Now you can use plain
GCC (from sourceforgery for example) and Eclipse to get started.

Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.
It seems the open source sdcc C compiler can output PIC16 and some PIC18 code too.
I am now doing 8052 code with it.
I may or may not try to target some PIC with it some day,
just to see what code it generates, I use gpasm for PICs now.
PIC is nice to program in my view.
Small micros should be programmed in asm.
But the micros get bigger all the time.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:33 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.

But the register layout <shudder>. I wanted to like PICs, I really did.
And I do see some places where they're the optimal choice. But, to try
to squeeze everything through the one W register?!

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:46:17 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4b52475b.610359265@news.planet.nl>:

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:02:30 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4b520c58.595258812@news.planet.nl>:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:35:49 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.

But be advised: as soon as you think 'I need 2 PICs for this project'
it is time to dump the PIC and learn to use a completely different
microcontroller. For more complicated projects using a PIC is like
eating soup with chopsticks. PIC gets you started real fast but it
also runs out of air real fast.

What applications have you had to implement where a 40-80 MHz 32-bit
MIPS processor with 512M of flash is so woefully inadequate?

That is not a PIC. That is a PIC32! A whole different beast. If you
like your sanity, I wouldn't program those in assembly though (google
'MIPS one delay slot').

Sice when is a PIC32 not a PIC,
of course it is.

Because Microchip says so?

It is even spelled 'PIC'32

PIC32 is Microchip's answer to the many ARM
devices flooding the market these days. They simply want a piece of
the action. It is a neat marketing trick to say a PIC32 is like a
PIC16/18 but in reality a PIC32 is very similar to any ARM based
microcontroller. Only Microchip decided to use a MIPS cpu instead of
an ARM cpu. Its a good thing though that Microchip didn't try to
invent yet another proprietary instruction set. Now you can use plain
GCC (from sourceforgery for example) and Eclipse to get started.

Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.
It seems the open source sdcc C compiler can output PIC16 and some PIC18 code too.
I am now doing 8052 code with it.

For 8051 and PIC you kinda need a commercial C compiler if you want to
do some serious work. Keil's C compiler produces excellent code for
the 8051. Hi-tech (9.6) tries to do so for PIC but gets lost every now
and then. Even the command line options don't work properly.

I've used SDCC many years ago but the result wheren't impressive. It
did a whole lot better than Dave Dunfield's C compiler (V3.14) though.
AFAIK SDCC has improved optimisations since then so you might be in
for a pleasant surprise.

I may or may not try to target some PIC with it some day,
just to see what code it generates, I use gpasm for PICs now.
PIC is nice to program in my view.
Small micros should be programmed in asm.

Like soup should be eaten with chop-sticks? Even small micro's should
have a proper instruction set that is easy to deal with by a C
compiler. Like the Renesas's H8 or TI's MSP430. BTW, the new Cortex M0
and M3 devices do not need a single line of assembly to startup. Also
pushing & popping registers when handling an interrupt is done
entirely in hardware. Thats really neat!

I left the 8051 and similar micros long ago. Way too much hassle with
bank switching, pages, different memory areas. I want to get work done
not tinker with archaic architectures.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[krw]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:42:15 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:09:16 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:41:17 -0600, "RogerN" <regor@midwest.net
wrote:


"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:e524l51tm7q1rb4sk0e6v8dq8sbv8squud@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:38:42 -0600, "RogerN" <regor@midwest.net
wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of
the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.
I also have an Atmel STK500 starter kit that I bought around 10 years ago
and have hardly used. I downloaded Arduino software and GNU C compiler
for
the AVRs.
I plan to look into the other stuff that I'm not familiar with but sounds
interesting, such as the Texas Instruments, Silabs, Arm, etc.

At work some of our electricians hacked into alarm clocks to automatically
start their car a few minutes before the end of their shift. They have
the
Bulldog security remote starter and said it has an input you can use to
start your car, where we work is too far from the parking lot to use the
remote. That would be a nice microcontroller project, use a temperature
sensor and RTCC, if it's freezing out, start the car so many minutes
before
the end of shift, the colder it is, the more warm up time is allowed.

Be careful here. It's very easy to burn up a starter, wiring, or at
least kill a battery, when you least want a dead battery (BT). Even
professionally installed car starters cause enough problems to
invalidate car warranties. There is a *lot* to consider here. I
certainly wouldn't play with a car starter. I found it easier to move
to the South. ;-)


They have the Bulldog Security remote car starter installed and working,
hopefully the bugs are worked out of it.

I thought they were rolling their own starter. A commercial unit is
better but still will do exactly the wrong thing occasionally. DAMHIK
...and may void any warranty.

If I understand correctly, they
run the starter for a couple of seconds, if the car doesn't start, it will
try again so many seconds later, running the starter for maybe 3 or 4
seconds (or something like that).

Car starters also have to monitor RPM to detect the start. Sometimes
this doesn't work out so well. Multiple start attempts will often
kill a battery. A human has a better chance of doing it right than a
generic auto-starter. They work great, when you don't need them.

Also, they said it will only run the car
up to 15 minutes and then shuts off unless the ignition switch is turned on.

Yes, but starting under all conditions is the real problem.

One guy took a battery operated alarm clock and wired a transistor to the
alarm, I'm not sure what the others did, but something similar. With a
microcontroller you could sense temperature, if it's above freezing you may
not want the car to start at all.

In my position, I go to work at the same time every morning but I work over
some almost every day, so starting my car based on time wouldn't work for
me, starting by cell phone might though. But I don't want to have another
cell phone just to set in my car to start it a few days a year. Remote
starting would benefit me mostly in the morning but I'm in range to start my
car from inside if I wanted to.

I had one of these things in my wife's car. Never again, and I only
lost a battery (and had to put up with SWMBO's ire).

Our Q45 has heated (and cooled) seats ;-)

Common on luxury cars and higher level packages on many others. They
don't help getting the ice off the windows, and at -30F they don't
help at all.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:26:34 +0100, Falk Willberg
<Faweglassenlk@falk-willberg.de> wrote:

krw schrieb:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:54:26 +0100, Falk Willberg wrote

...

Running an engine at low temperatures causes a lot of wear. Starting it
and drive at reasonably low RPM is the best way to reach operating
temperature in short time.

Nonsense. The wear is at least as great by driving it at any speed as
it is by letting it idle. You *should* idle at least as long as it
takes to get off high-idle. Some recommend warming then engine
completely.

I don't know wether this is true for ancient engine designs.

It's true for *all* engines. Until the oil is moving it's best not to
demand too much from the engine.

The manual
of my car (Peugeot Diesel, 2000 model) recommends to start the engine
and immediatly drive at low RPM. Even the very simple engine of my
motorcycle[0] does not require any warm up.

You probably believe you can go 10000 miles on an oil change too.

The car
needs to be started anyway. It may "waste" a little gas by idling a
*little* longer than normal.
The amount of waste depends on what you consider a "little longer".

Long enough for the engine to come up to temperature.

Warming up idling obviously takes more time.

Some. Time that you aren't freezing your ass off.

Auxiliary heaters can be powered with gas or diesel. Besides that there
are two types. One heat the coolant, thus heating the car's inside and
avoid cold starting the engine.

You're going to have a gasoline fire burning to keep the engine warm?

Sure, why not? But it is not a simple fire. Thos auxiliary heaters work
similiar to a Coleman lamp but do not have to emit light.

I know how they work. It's still a stupid idea. Air-cooled cars have
little choice but there is a *ton* of free and easy heat available
from a water cooled engine. An auxiliary heater for the few cold days
in the cold climates makes no sense at all.

The other type only heats the inside of the vehicle.

...and you bitch about "wasting" a little gas.

Blowing hot "air" through the exhaust without need is waste. Heating
with ~90% efficiency is much less waste.

Heating with waste heat is free. You have to count the entire life
cycle of the car.

Both have a much better efficiency than an idling engine.

Nonsense. Heat from the engine is free.

Sorry, I did not know, that in the U.S. gas is free if your vehicle is
not moving ;-)

Look at the total cost of ownership. The few minutes warming a car up
when it's <0F isn't a big deal. The cost of another heater, as
options only for the few who want it would be.

 

[don]

Rich Webb wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:33 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.

But the register layout <shudder>. I wanted to like PICs, I really did.
And I do see some places where they're the optimal choice. But, to try
to squeeze everything through the one W register?!

You have to remember, the PIC was designed to be cheap.

To be cheap, internal decoding had to be limited.
So banking, instead of decoding a larger memory map.

Like the 8042 so many years ago.

Even with a "cheap" register set, a C compiler can be built to make
programming easier for us grunts in the field.

I did not use PICs until the first C compiler came out.
Does not really matter how bad the code is, your programming in C and
not assembly.

Any C compiler take a lot of the tediousness out of programming.

my $0.02

don

 

[Falk Willberg]

krw schrieb:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:26:34 +0100, Falk Willberg
Faweglassenlk@falk-willberg.de> wrote:

....

The manual
of my car (Peugeot Diesel, 2000 model) recommends to start the engine
and immediatly drive at low RPM. Even the very simple engine of my
motorcycle[0] does not require any warm up.

You probably believe you can go 10000 miles on an oil change too.

No, it's about 12000 miles (20000km) maybe only 9000 (15000km). And I
use the cheapest oil I can get, that meets the specification. I never
had an engine breakdown in 25 yrs.

As this thread is OT now, EOD for me.

Falk

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:53:31 -0500) it happened Rich Webb
<bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
<kln4l5dggg9tfjsn9m0tbt305sjl3p8j03@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:33 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.

But the register layout <shudder>. I wanted to like PICs, I really did.
And I do see some places where they're the optimal choice. But, to try
to squeeze everything through the one W register?!

Works OK here

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:43:57 -0700) it happened don <don> wrote
in <M5CdnSYOtdADPs_WnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@forethought.net>:

You have to remember, the PIC was designed to be cheap.

To be cheap, internal decoding had to be limited.
So banking, instead of decoding a larger memory map.

Like the 8042 so many years ago.

Even with a "cheap" register set, a C compiler can be built to make
programming easier for us grunts in the field.

I did not use PICs until the first C compiler came out.
Does not really matter how bad the code is, your programming in C and
not assembly.

Any C compiler take a lot of the tediousness out of programming.

C is OK for micros with a lot of memory.
The small PICs like 12F... and 16F... I prefer to program in asm.
The effort is the same, but in asm you know exactly what happens.
When doing it in C you will have to look at the asm it generated many times...
Once you did some in asm, then quickly you have collected a library of useful routines.
Time critical requires asm anyways.
Portability is not really an issue for those small things, often the hardware is unique,
look at temp_pic for example:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/temp_pic/index.html
Or freq_pic:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/freq_pic/index.html
Pronounced freak PIC...

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:02:30 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:35:49 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.

But be advised: as soon as you think 'I need 2 PICs for this project'
it is time to dump the PIC and learn to use a completely different
microcontroller. For more complicated projects using a PIC is like
eating soup with chopsticks. PIC gets you started real fast but it
also runs out of air real fast.

What applications have you had to implement where a 40-80 MHz 32-bit
MIPS processor with 512M of flash is so woefully inadequate?

That is not a PIC. That is a PIC32! A whole different beast.

Most of the same tools, the same vendor and distributor, the same IDE,
and much of the same 'C' code should work though, so it is a path
upward on larger projects.

If you
like your sanity, I wouldn't program those in assembly though (google
'MIPS one delay slot').

I haven't looked at the assembly code for MIPS. ARM assembly is pretty
reasonable.

Hmm.. the Wikipedia article says that the assembler will re-order the
instructions for you to handle the delay slots. Anyone know if this is
true for MIPS? Not usually the sort of thing you would expect or want
an assembler to be doing.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:53:31 -0500, the renowned Rich Webb
<bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:33 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.

But the register layout <shudder>. I wanted to like PICs, I really did.
And I do see some places where they're the optimal choice. But, to try
to squeeze everything through the one W register?!

The architecture of the 12/14 bit instruction set PICs is undeniably
ugly.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Nico Coesel]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:02:30 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:35:49 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.

But be advised: as soon as you think 'I need 2 PICs for this project'
it is time to dump the PIC and learn to use a completely different
microcontroller. For more complicated projects using a PIC is like
eating soup with chopsticks. PIC gets you started real fast but it
also runs out of air real fast.

What applications have you had to implement where a 40-80 MHz 32-bit
MIPS processor with 512M of flash is so woefully inadequate?

That is not a PIC. That is a PIC32! A whole different beast.

Most of the same tools, the same vendor and distributor, the same IDE,
and much of the same 'C' code should work though, so it is a path
upward on larger projects.

I doubt that. The PIC32 compiler is GCC, the compiler for the other
PICs is Hi-tech. Porting code between them requires a lot of defines
(think about types that include the bank number, interrupt service
routines, pragma's, attributes, etc). And the architectural
differences between PIC32 and previous PICs are too big to share code
efficiently.

I tried to keep some code portable between ARM (gcc) and PIC16 but
that is a no go. ARM and MIPS processors really like pointers with
offsets. PIC16 does not. On ARM/MIPS it is more efficient to pass a
pointer to a struct (part of an array of structs). However on PIC it
is more efficient to provide an index into the array of structs. So
keeping data as local as possible won't fly with PIC.

If you
like your sanity, I wouldn't program those in assembly though (google
'MIPS one delay slot').

I haven't looked at the assembly code for MIPS. ARM assembly is pretty
reasonable.

Hmm.. the Wikipedia article says that the assembler will re-order the
instructions for you to handle the delay slots. Anyone know if this is
true for MIPS? Not usually the sort of thing you would expect or want
an assembler to be doing.

Well, the assembler I used didn't re-order the instructions.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[krw]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:34:28 +0100, Falk Willberg
<Faweglassenlk@falk-willberg.de> wrote:

krw schrieb:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:26:34 +0100, Falk Willberg
Faweglassenlk@falk-willberg.de> wrote:

...

The manual
of my car (Peugeot Diesel, 2000 model) recommends to start the engine
and immediatly drive at low RPM. Even the very simple engine of my
motorcycle[0] does not require any warm up.

You probably believe you can go 10000 miles on an oil change too.

No, it's about 12000 miles (20000km) maybe only 9000 (15000km). And I
use the cheapest oil I can get, that meets the specification. I never
had an engine breakdown in 25 yrs.

You're a fool.

As this thread is OT now, EOD for me.

Bye.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:03:36 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:02:30 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:35:49 GMT, the renowned nico@puntnl.niks (Nico
Coesel) wrote:

"RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> wrote:

Thanks for all the fantastic recommendations! It seems like for many of the
microcontrollers it doesn't cost much to get going at a hobby level. I
ordered a PIC18 something starter kit that comes with a PICkit2
programmer/debugger and I ordered a PICkit3 Debug Express.

But be advised: as soon as you think 'I need 2 PICs for this project'
it is time to dump the PIC and learn to use a completely different
microcontroller. For more complicated projects using a PIC is like
eating soup with chopsticks. PIC gets you started real fast but it
also runs out of air real fast.

What applications have you had to implement where a 40-80 MHz 32-bit
MIPS processor with 512M of flash is so woefully inadequate?

That is not a PIC. That is a PIC32! A whole different beast.

Most of the same tools, the same vendor and distributor, the same IDE,
and much of the same 'C' code should work though, so it is a path
upward on larger projects.

I doubt that. The PIC32 compiler is GCC, the compiler for the other
PICs is Hi-tech.

Your doubts are misplaced. GCC is the basis of Microchip MPLAB C
compilers for the PIC24 and PIC30/PIC33 (16-bit) architectures.

And Hitech (now owned by Microchip) has a PIC32 compiler, so you are
free to go both ways, as it were.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:16:47 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:53:31 -0500, the renowned Rich Webb
bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:33 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.

But the register layout <shudder>. I wanted to like PICs, I really did.
And I do see some places where they're the optimal choice. But, to try
to squeeze everything through the one W register?!

The architecture of the 12/14 bit instruction set PICs is undeniably
ugly.

Beauty is in the eye...

But uglier even than an 8051 core.

I believe I've read something about the PIC dating back to
the mid 1970's. Ah, heck, why say only that. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller

The darned thing dates back to the mid-1970s! This is right
in the middle of the transition from MSI to LSI in IC
technology. 1kx1 dynamic ram chips were the rage of that
day.

The 8051 dates back to about 1980. Some 5 years later. Which
was well into the LSI side of IC design and where it was much
more realizable. Memory sizes were much larger, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8051

Plus, the PIC was designed at the time merely to offload I/O
tasks not for general purpose computing, while the 8051 was
designed at the outset as the sole microcontroller in a
system. (The 8048 would be closer, in my mind, to serving
PIC's designed services and may be more comparable.)

Those were all NMOS stuff at the time, too.

....

I like to think of it as a naked cpu. For some, an unclothed
body is the most beautiful of all!

But now that I mention it, the PIC is 'ancient' and not so
many ancient bodies are all that attractive, anymore. So...

Yeah. It can be said to be ugly.

For a given FAB process and yield, since the PIC was designed
when every transmission gate and inverter meant something, it
also means they can add a little more on the other end. Or
so one would like to believe.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:46:42 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

snip
Hmm.. the Wikipedia article says that the assembler will re-order the
instructions for you to handle the delay slots. Anyone know if this is
true for MIPS? Not usually the sort of thing you would expect or want
an assembler to be doing.

Yes, it is true. I used the code reorganizer as part of the
assembler chain back in the late 1980's when working on the
R2000 chipset. It's not very hard to do, manually. You just
look upwards in your code and find an instruction to move
into the delay slot. The reorganizer would obviously leave
it, then. But the Pretty basic and pretty simple.

J. W. Davidson wrote a paper about the whole idea called, "A
Retargetable Instruction Reorganizer." It was in the
proceedings of ACM, in the 1986 SIGPLAN Symposium stuff.

Jon

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:13:53 -0800, the renowned Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:16:47 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:53:31 -0500, the renowned Rich Webb
bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:33 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Well, I sort of like the PIC16 - PIC12 instruction set,
although too many bank switching instructions make the asm bigger.
It is a good instruction set, and it works.

But the register layout <shudder>. I wanted to like PICs, I really did.
And I do see some places where they're the optimal choice. But, to try
to squeeze everything through the one W register?!

The architecture of the 12/14 bit instruction set PICs is undeniably
ugly.

Beauty is in the eye...

But uglier even than an 8051 core.

I believe I've read something about the PIC dating back to
the mid 1970's. Ah, heck, why say only that. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller

The darned thing dates back to the mid-1970s! This is right
in the middle of the transition from MSI to LSI in IC
technology. 1kx1 dynamic ram chips were the rage of that
day.

The 8051 dates back to about 1980. Some 5 years later. Which
was well into the LSI side of IC design and where it was much
more realizable. Memory sizes were much larger, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8051

Plus, the PIC was designed at the time merely to offload I/O
tasks not for general purpose computing, while the 8051 was
designed at the outset as the sole microcontroller in a
system. (The 8048 would be closer, in my mind, to serving
PIC's designed services and may be more comparable.)

Those were all NMOS stuff at the time, too.

...

I like to think of it as a naked cpu. For some, an unclothed
body is the most beautiful of all!

But now that I mention it, the PIC is 'ancient' and not so
many ancient bodies are all that attractive, anymore. So...

Well, it's upwards of 245 years old in uC years..

Yeah. It can be said to be ugly.

Despite facelifts etc., one feels one must avert one's eyes. But it
does work. Speaking of the 12/16 core here primarily.

For a given FAB process and yield, since the PIC was designed
when every transmission gate and inverter meant something, it
also means they can add a little more on the other end. Or
so one would like to believe.

Jon

They do the job, and Sanghi has done yeoman duty in making them
consistently available (and well-marketed). In the end, that's all
that matters.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:04:36 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:06:28 GMT) it happened nico@puntnl.niks
(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4b51e214.584438953@news.planet.nl>:

Here is a nice example of a project that uses 2 PICs for a start,
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/swr_pic/index.html
And guess what, both are listening on the same RS232 line,
and one does the reply work and carries the help text.

So you'll have to program 2 devices,

Yes, but the reason was actually not code space related but I/O pins.


keep 2 versions of software in
sync,

Now if that was the biggest problem, I have almost 1000 software versions out there,
this morning an other email about one with suggested code improvements.
Thats is how open source works, pfff 2 versions.... don't overwork yourself


place 2 devices,

So, 18 extra pins, I wonder how many I/O pins that ARM solution of yours has.


use more boardspace

Oh yes, that really is a worry if you have 1 cubic decimeter available...NOT.


and have no way to move to
a different platform

Why move? PICs last as long as the FLASH last, so does your ARM.



without rewriting from scratch if you have to.

Product lifetime... think about it.



Sounds like an excellent product I can redesign (I actually make a lot
of money doing such projects) to cut the product cost in half using an
ARM controller.

Well, if you design mama dolls that say 'Hello World', or 'I need to pee',
and they are reproduced in the millions, I guess you should consider PIC.
There is a single chip PIC solution that says 'I am mister Ed' on the web somewhere,
you can learn about PIC programming from it, I did.
In the movie I did see last night they had a doll that did say 'I love you'
when you pressed it, and 10 seconds later it would explode,
for that sort of design PIC is also a perfect solution.
Why bother with something as obscure as ARM?
I expect the big cellphone manufacturers to move to x86 too, it is so much
more appealing to the market if cellphones can run win 7..


A cell phone running MSwin7? You are hilarious. That bloatware that can bring

a 1.5 GHz processor with 1/2 GiB of ram to its knees? Not to mention having
about a 10 GiB minimum disk footprint.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

WTF do people use sigs, it is wasted bandwidth, says the same thing over and over again like an idiot,
and it is annoying to have to read it every time again to see it is crap.