Pic32 Starter Kit

http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=2615&dDocName=en532453
http://www.microchipdirect.com/ProductSearch.aspx?Keywords=DM320001

Know of a cheaper evaluation/development/starter kit for a
microprocessor? Available in Australia.

 

[Don McKenzie]

cockatoo@aussieisp.net.au wrote:

http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=2615&dDocName=en532453
http://www.microchipdirect.com/ProductSearch.aspx?Keywords=DM320001

Know of a cheaper evaluation/development/starter kit for a
microprocessor? Available in Australia.

for a PIC?
For a PIC32 specifically?
USB powered or other?

Cheers Don...



--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email

Xbee Wireless Modules, and low cost Interface Boards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/xbee-boards.html

 

[David L. Jones]

On Aug 19, 10:59 am, cocka...@aussieisp.net.au wrote:

http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeI...http://www.microchipdirect.com/ProductSearch.aspx?Keywords=DM320001

Know of a cheaper evaluation/development/starter kit for a
microprocessor? Available in Australia.

Same price for something better (IMO), available from an Australian
supplier:
http://www.modtronix.com/product_info.php?cPath=32&products_id=317
No stock at present though.
And you get the awesome PICkit2 programmer with it which can program
and debug almost any series ISP PIC, including the PIC32. Also doubles
as a 4 channel logic analyser, a serial port analyser, and a
standalone remote firmware downlaod solution.

Dave.

 

No credit card facility. Although Farnell takes money orders.

http://au.farnell.com/1523317/semiconductors-tools-accessories/product.us0?sku=microchip-dm320001&_requestid=9770

$80 seems a good buy, when you get a suite of software including a 'C'
compiler. Though I wonder
at the output capacity of this product, lcd, registers on screen,
diodes?

Do modtronix.com take orders other than credit cards?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller#PIC32MX_32-bit_Microcontrollers

Harvard architecture is a difficult programming exercise in assembler,
but quite accessible
in 'C' language which is provided by the PIC 32 starter kit.

Was looking for a microcontroller based on the Z80. CISC is much
nicer to code with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z80

http://www.zilog.com/products/partdetails.asp?id=Z8S18000ZCO

The Z180 microcontroller development board. Too expensive and
probably not available in
Australia.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:21:05 -0700, David L. Jones wrote:

Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me.

speed.
reliability.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Aug 22, 8:56 am, cocka...@aussieisp.net.au wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller#PIC32MX_32-bit_Micro...

Harvard architecture is a difficult programming exercise in assembler,
but quite accessible
in 'C' language which is provided by the PIC 32 starter kit.

Was looking for a microcontroller based on the Z80. CISC is much
nicer to code with.

Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me. C
has so many more benefits on multiple levels. You should only code in
assembler when required, e.g. small/fast/critical routines. Most
micros have decent free C compilers available, suitable for all but
the most demanding apps.

C makes the architecture choice almost irrelevant for most apps.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Aug 22, 1:00 pm, terryc <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:21:05 -0700, David L. Jones wrote:
Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me.

speed.

Depends. There are many excellent C compilers that produce superbly
fast and tight assembler code.
Just because it's in assembler doesn't automatically mean it's faster.
A good C compiler will produce faster code than poorly written
assembler any day.

reliability.

Properly tested C code has the same reliability as properly tested
assembler code.
Poorly tested assembler is not reliable, just as poorly tested C code
is not reliable.


Of course, we won't even mention the many benefits of C over
assembler.

Dave.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-08-21, cockatoo@aussieisp.net.au <cockatoo@aussieisp.net.au> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller#PIC32MX_32-bit_Microcontrollers

Harvard architecture is a difficult programming exercise in assembler,
but quite accessible

what? only if you're doing self modifying code it is!

I found AVR (Harvard) no more difficult that Z80 (Von Neumann)
to program in assembler.

after 1000 lines of avr assembler (a few years ago) and about same amount of Z80
(when I was a kid) I prefer AVR.

Was looking for a microcontroller based on the Z80. CISC is much
nicer to code with.

It's just the PIC instruction set that tastes bad.

have a look at AVR, it's as nice as, if not nicer than, Z80
it matches most feature (with the exception of the ldir,lddr,otir (etc) op-codes
which are easily replaced with a loop) the ATmega versions get you a
hardare 8x8bit multipier which can help sometimes.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-08-22, David L. Jones <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 22, 1:00 pm, terryc <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:21:05 -0700, David L. Jones wrote:
Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me.

speed.

Depends. There are many excellent C compilers that produce superbly
fast and tight assembler code.
Just because it's in assembler doesn't automatically mean it's faster.
A good C compiler will produce faster code than poorly written
assembler any day.

Only in the hands of someone with some knowledge of assembler.

If you only know C you can it's too easy to make bad choices.

eg: multiplying is faster than dividing so multiplying by 0.5
is faster than dividing by 2

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Ray]

In article <g8m0u5$8m0$2@gonzo>, jasen@xnet.co.nz says...

On 2008-08-22, David L. Jones <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:00 pm, terryc <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:21:05 -0700, David L. Jones wrote:
Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me.

speed.

Depends. There are many excellent C compilers that produce superbly
fast and tight assembler code.
Just because it's in assembler doesn't automatically mean it's faster.
A good C compiler will produce faster code than poorly written
assembler any day.

Only in the hands of someone with some knowledge of assembler.

If you only know C you can it's too easy to make bad choices.

eg: multiplying is faster than dividing so multiplying by 0.5
is faster than dividing by 2

Bye.
Jasen

Not a good example, a divide by two with ints is a simple single instruction shift right, can't get any quicker
than that.

But generally if talking about floats with a real FP core, yes multiplies are quicker.

But using FP in micros is foolish in most instances due to the processing overhead for a questionable gain.

If you can use ints, use them, performance will rise dramatically.

Ray

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-08-22, Ray <zathrasAT@netspaceDOTnetDOT.au> wrote:

A good C compiler will produce faster code than poorly written
assembler any day.

Only in the hands of someone with some knowledge of assembler.

If you only know C you can it's too easy to make bad choices.

eg: multiplying is faster than dividing so multiplying by 0.5
is faster than dividing by 2

Not a good example, a divide by two with ints is a simple single instruction shift right, can't get any quicker
than that.

But generally if talking about floats with a real FP core, yes multiplies are quicker.

it was an example pitfall 0.5 is a float so the C program will convert
my interger to a float multiply it by 0.5 (another float) and then
convert the result it back to an integer.
although someone who knows C would know that... point conceded.
they may also know that the compiler will translate a division by
literal 2 into a shift, instead of calling the integer divide
function.

But using FP in micros is foolish in most instances due to the processing overhead for a questionable gain.

yeah, unless there's no hurry floats are a bad idea.

If you can use ints, use them, performance will rise dramatically.

and if you use chars instead of ints you win a little more too
as long as your numbers fit in 8 bits.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[keithr]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3698dc9-fea7-4145-97a6-f67212914318@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 22, 8:56 am, cocka...@aussieisp.net.au wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller#PIC32MX_32-bit_Micro...

Harvard architecture is a difficult programming exercise in assembler,
but quite accessible
in 'C' language which is provided by the PIC 32 starter kit.

Was looking for a microcontroller based on the Z80. CISC is much
nicer to code with.

Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me. C
has so many more benefits on multiple levels. You should only code in
assembler when required, e.g. small/fast/critical routines. Most
micros have decent free C compilers available, suitable for all but
the most demanding apps.

C makes the architecture choice almost irrelevant for most apps.

For vey small projects the overhead is too great, the space it takes up may
exceed the space required for the actual code.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Aug 23, 11:03 am, "keithr" <kei...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e3698dc9-fea7-4145-97a6-f67212914318@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



On Aug 22, 8:56 am, cocka...@aussieisp.net.au wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller#PIC32MX_32-bit_Micro...

Harvard architecture is a difficult programming exercise in assembler,
but quite accessible
in 'C' language which is provided by the PIC 32 starter kit.

Was looking for a microcontroller based on the Z80. CISC is much
nicer to code with.

Why anyone would want to code in assembler these days is beyond me. C
has so many more benefits on multiple levels. You should only code in
assembler when required, e.g. small/fast/critical routines. Most
micros have decent free C compilers available, suitable for all but
the most demanding apps.

C makes the architecture choice almost irrelevant for most apps.

For vey small projects the overhead is too great, the space it takes up may
exceed the space required for the actual code.

Sure, there will always be specific circumstances where you need to go
assembly for small apps where every byte counts, but for most general
apps you don't.

I've done many useful PIC C projects with under 2KB of program memory.

Dave.

 

[Mik DaDik]

"Enjoyed, reading the 'Programming the Z80' book by Zacs(?). "

Rodney Zaks: http://www.z80.info/z80lit.htm

It has been a while (too long a while) but wasn't it rodnAy zacs??
an A not E

Mik

=

 

"The Z180 microcontroller development board. Too expensive and
probably not available in
Australia. "

http://www.dominion.net.au/index.php?a=3&b=61&c=244&d=101-1089

Rabbit microcontrollers are z80 compat.. Interesting to see how much
this costs.

Odd to have z80s running at 50mhz. Remember the old 8bit cpus in many
chintzy
microcomputers operating at 4mhz clock speed.

Liked the old Dick Smith, VZ300 though. Came with an assembler on
casette tape.

Enjoyed, reading the 'Programming the Z80' book by Zacs(?).

 

"Enjoyed, reading the 'Programming the Z80' book by Zacs(?). "

Rodney Zaks: http://www.z80.info/z80lit.htm

 

Pigs that fly in the sky so very high.

 

On Aug 23, 5:09 pm, cocka...@aussieisp.net.au wrote:

Pigs that fly in the sky so very high.

7:9:30

7 * 60 * 60 + 9 * 60 + 30 = 25770

25770 / 2008 = 12.83366534

(12.83366534 - 12) * 2008 = 1674

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1674