uC selection

[Jon Slaughter]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?
Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something similar to
microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen any commercial
device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for this? It seems
that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a commercial product is a
no-no?

 

[Jon Slaughter]

People use what they are comfortable with or what they are told to use.

Ok, no one is telling me to use it cause its my decision. I use PIC's cause
its easy to get free samples and most of the dev tools are free. But I guess
you get what you pay for. I'm interested in moving on if there is something
better. I want a modern IDE and modern dev tools and not something from the
80's that still uses win3.1 based code(can tell from the interface).

 

[BobW]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but
what? Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something
similar to microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen
any commercial device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for
this? It seems that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a
commercial product is a no-no?

What do you mean "seems that PICs are only for hobbyists"? What data do you
have to support that conclusion?

In my opinion, you use the component that meets your requirements.

For example, I recently started a project with an Atmel AVR. It seemed to
fit my needs until I discovered a really nasty characteristic in its
interrupt latency response. Now, I'm using a PIC (24F family) and it works
perfectly.

At another company, I needed an inexpensive uC. One of the PICs suited my
needs. That company shipped tens of thousands of units with the PIC in it.

Bob

 

[sycochkn]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but
what? Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something
similar to microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen
any commercial device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for
this? It seems that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a
commercial product is a no-no?

People use what they are comfortable with or what they are told to use.

Bob

 

[[email protected]]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?
Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something similar to
microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen any commercial
device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for this? It seems
that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a commercial product is a
no-no?

It's spelled "hobbyist". Just like "lobbyist".
PICs are used in cheap, high volume applications where you won't even
see the part number or logo.
What language do you program in? What kind of applications? Simple
button-LCD-I2C or more complex signal processing?

 

[Jon Slaughter]

It's spelled "hobbyist". Just like "lobbyist".
PICs are used in cheap, high volume applications where you won't even
see the part number or logo.
What language do you program in? What kind of applications? Simple
button-LCD-I2C or more complex signal processing?

I have programmed in a large number of languages and thats not really the
issue(python, php, C/C++/C#, java, assembly, pascal, etc..). The main thing
is the funcitonality and scalability.

I'm looking at TI's chips right now and trying to see how consistent the
chips are. I am not doing any advanced uC system's yet(just adc and pwm
stuff ATM) but eventually I'd like to get into dsp(audio processing) and
other stuff. I don't want to have to learn a new chip every time I move to a
new application or be limited by the architecture. PIC's seem more like
entry level more than anything else and I feel like the time invested in
learning them might not pay off in the long run.

The only reason I'm using pic's now is cause of how easy was to get started
and the majority of it was free/low cost(tools, chips, programmer, etc...).

atmel AVR's seem similar to intel chips which I am used too as I used to do
a lot of programming(although its been years) in x86. I'm not at all sure
about TI and AD chips but looking at TI's now.

 

[Dave Platt]

The only reason I'm using pic's now is cause of how easy was to get started
and the majority of it was free/low cost(tools, chips, programmer, etc...).

Microchip seems to be selling around $1 billion of inventory per
year... I imagine that a goodly fraction of it is their
microcontrollers. I've read that the PICs have traditionally been one
of the top few in the "total number of processors installed per year"
for quite some time.

The PIC chips have an admittedly quirky architecture, but I believe
they're one of the better bang-for-the- buck chips in many niches.

atmel AVR's seem similar to intel chips which I am used too as I used to do
a lot of programming(although its been years) in x86. I'm not at all sure
about TI and AD chips but looking at TI's now.

The Atmel micros I've worked with have been pretty nice to work
with. In particular, the instruction and register sets are quite
C-and-compiler-friendly, and the generated code is usually quite
compact. Distinctly better than the PIC or 8051 in that respect, and
better IMO than the X86.

 

[Frank Buss]

I'm looking at TI's chips right now and trying to see how consistent the
chips are. I am not doing any advanced uC system's yet(just adc and pwm
stuff ATM) but eventually I'd like to get into dsp(audio processing) and
other stuff. I don't want to have to learn a new chip every time I move to a
new application or be limited by the architecture. PIC's seem more like
entry level more than anything else and I feel like the time invested in
learning them might not pay off in the long run.

I've used the PIC18F252 in a commercial product, which is still selling.
This chip provides a lot more than "entry level" chips.

The only reason I'm using pic's now is cause of how easy was to get started
and the majority of it was free/low cost(tools, chips, programmer, etc...).

Take a look at some 8051 chips. I like the architecture much more than the
PIC architecture and there are lots of companies who produces 8051
compatible chips. A nice website for searching for microcontrollers is this
site:

http://www.keil.com/dd/search_parm.asp

The right microcontroller depends on many things. First define your
requirements (technical requirements, like low power, required interfaces,
ADC/DAC etc. and other requirements, like produced by multiple companies,
like some 8051 chips, free development tools, price etc.) and then choose
the chip which meets all requirements. Hobbyist requirements may be other
than commercial requirements (e.g. for most commercial projects it doesn't
matter to buy a good IDE and compiler).

If you just want to play a bit with a new architecture, Silicon
Laboratories has some nice chips and development boards. I've bought one
for evaluating the 8051 architecture:

http://www.frank-buss.de/LabViewSilabsTest/

 

[Eeyore]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?

What does it need to do ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I use PIC's cause its easy to get free samples and most of the dev tools are
free.

That figures !

But I guess you get what you pay for. I'm interested in moving on if there is
something
better. I want a modern IDE and modern dev tools and not something from the
80's that still uses win3.1 based code(can tell from the interface).

I have NEVER found an 'IDE' to be even remotely of interest but then with an
8051 you're worried about simulating the chip's defects.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I want a modern IDE and modern dev tools and not something from the
80's that still uses win3.1 based code(can tell from the interface).

I find 'notepad' entirely satisfactory for writing PLM/51.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

eventually I'd like to get into dsp(audio processing) and
other stuff. I don't want to have to learn a new chip every time I move

Since DSP chips work on an entirely different basis to general purpose
processors, you WILL have to learn them about their operation anyway.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

The Atmel micros I've worked with have been pretty nice to work
with. In particular, the instruction and register sets are quite
C-and-compiler-friendly, and the generated code is usually quite
compact. Distinctly better than the PIC or 8051 in that respect, and
better IMO than the X86.

Lord above !

Decisions being taken based on whether the miserable C compiler makes decent
code for the target MCU. What HAVE we come to ? !!!


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Take a look at some 8051 chips. I like the architecture much more than the
PIC architecture and there are lots of companies who produces 8051
compatible chips.

The 8051 family is wickedly GOOD. My fave. And I have a copy of PLM/51 so I don't
have to use that stupid 'C'.

Graham

 

[MK]

The 8051 family is wickedly GOOD. My fave. And I have a copy of PLM/51 so
I don't
have to use that stupid 'C'.

Graham

The main problem with 8051 and derivatives (even Silabs nice single cycle
25MHz and 100MHz parts which I have used in several designs) is that they
are so slow and so limited compared with the latest 32 bitters.

Look at ST STM32 range (ARM Cortex) - fast, free software tools if you want,
damn good tools if you pay, cheap processors , lots of flash and RAM and
more coming. (But there are also Atmel, NXP and Luminary parts worth looking
at too.)

Unless you need a fancy peripheral you can't get on a flash based ARM they
offer a much lower total design-in cost for small volumes (ie production
runs up to 1000) than the 8 bit processors.

(Like all generalisations this one is subject to exceptions).

Michael Kellett

www.mkesc.co.uk

 

[Brendan Gillatt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?
Is Atmel worth it?

Sure if the chips suit.

What about TI?

Again, sure if the chips suit the job.

I'm looking for something similar to
microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen any commercial
device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for this?

Oh, there's plenty of commercial use for them! The Dell laptop I have
recently disassembled used a PIC for the mouse pad. You'd probably find
them in all kinds of appliances (dishwashers, tumble driers, etc.) if you
took some of those apart.

It seems
that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a commercial product is a
no-no?

Why wouldn't you? If the chip performs the function and the price is
right, what is there to loose?

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFH26kuuv4tpb9qDZQRAkedAJwKltQYCqTWBAvw+O9PJEX0jn6ucACgre/S
1WM1MfqeQuKGJl1n3T1S6Lw=
=/30L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[[email protected]]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?
Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something similar to
microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen any commercial
device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for this? It seems
that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a commercial product is a
no-no?

Totally absurd.
I'v read the thread, and you carry on about win3.1, IDE what not.
I'v done video processing with an 8 pin PIC, with as only tool a scope
and
the gnu assembler..

A good musician can play wonderful music on a child's flute, a bad
musician
will still sound horrible on a Steinway,

You are too vague, look for a project first, then select a suitable
micro.
THAT is the way the professionals work.
There is always a cost issue too.
PICs win here many times.
For more complex things the next step is more likely a small Linux
based board,
whatever processor does not matter, as you then program in C anyway.

 

[Eeyore]

The main problem with 8051 and derivatives (even Silabs nice single cycle
25MHz and 100MHz parts which I have used in several designs) is that they
are so slow and so limited compared with the latest 32 bitters.

Not sure how 32 bits helps much for the typical uC application.

What do you need more speed than a 33/40 MHz 8051 for anyway ?

Graham

 

[Rich Webb]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?
Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something similar to
microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen any commercial
device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for this? It seems
that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a commercial product is a
no-no?

#include <two_cents.h>

I finally got tired of the PIC's paging and banking schemes, not to
mention the single "working register." That said, some apps match up
pretty well with that architecture and it does show up inside many
commercial products, especially white goods -- my outside HVAC unit is
PIC-controlled. You probably have more PICs at home than you realize.

In the 8-bit world, I find the AVRs to be a comfortable architecture,
especially with the deep set of general purpose registers and a nice
instruction set. Handy for home/hobby, also, given that many parts are
still available as 5V and DIP. In-system programmable with an
inexpensive programmer (roll-yer-own is possible).

However, I'd recommend that you take a good look at the ARM family if
you're interested in trying something new. No DIPs, so you'll need a
dev board but fortunately these are available and cheap. Olimex has a
bunch and they're distributed by Sparkfun. ARM cores also support
multiply-and-accumulate (MAC) so, while they're not dedicated DSP
chips, they're not incapable of DSP functionality.

 

[john jardine]

Currently I use microchip pics but I'm looking possibly to switch, but what?
Is Atmel worth it? What about TI? I'm looking for something similar to
microchip but more of a commercial aspect. I have never seen any commercial
device that uses a pic and I assume there are reasons for this? It seems
that pic's are only for hobbiests so using them in a commercial product is a
no-no?

Upto the other month I'd used Pics for over 10 years, resulting in large
numbers being used in a mainly industrial environment. Surely that's
commercial use?.
If quantities are vast ('consumer', e.g. mice) then Pics in the form of
(say) Holtek parts turn up but are then not directly recognisable.
Look in suppliers catalogues under "micros". There's maybe 10 micro types on
offer and that's what industry will be using in it's products. Quantities
out there inversely proportional to page pricing.
I recently changed to the Atmel AVR series and found it a vast improvement
on the Pic. Not a commercial decision, just that the AVR is clean enough to
not have to waste intellectual effort wrangling with Pic style
idiosyncrasies, hence leaving more quality time with the
'reason-for-the-product-the-first-place' analogue bits.