Are all of these the same thing?

Once I take a fancy to a particular microcontroller, the first thing
I'll want is a piece of hardware I can use for programming the chip.
Now given that I'm just one person working away in my bedroom with my
laptop, I'm not looking for some sort of industrial product the size
of a washing machine that can program 72 thousand chips every minute.
I'd want something small, no larger than the size of a CD dewel case,
that can hook up to my laptop via USB port / COM port / LPT port. It
shouldn't be too expensive either, but if it's pricey then I'll look
for a second-hand one on eBay.

Nowadays, are there some microcontrollers that are purely for "use in
industry"? What I mean to say is: Is there some microcontrollers out
there for which you CANNOT get a small programmer board, or perhaps
one's for which the programmer board is ridiculously expensive?

As I've mentioned here countless times, then only microcontroller I've
any experience with is the PIC16F684 because we used it in my college
course. I use the Pickit 1 to program it, which is a small programmer
board about the size of a credit card that connects to my PC via USB,
and the software I use for programming it is the PIC C compiler in
conjunction with MPLAB. The software was free, and I got the
development board for €10 through my college (which is about 15 US
dollars), so I'm pretty chuffed with that.

What do people call these "programmer boards" nowadays? I've heard
terms like "evaluation kit", "development board", but I don't know
what the difference is, if any.

I've also heard of something called "in-circuit programming" whereby
you can leave the chip in the circuit when you're programming it,
which I suppose is convenient. For my most recent project I simply
plucked the chip on and off the board, putting it into the Pickit 1 to
program and then putting it back in the circuit.

What I'm extremely interested in, however, are the development boards
that let you actually debug the program, i.e. you can have the chip in
its circuit and, while the program is running, you can pause the
program and check the value of registers, and also single-step through
instructions. In my most recent project, there were times when a bug
in the program resulted in my circuit board doing absolutely nothing,
so I hadn't a clue what was going on. Some sort of debugger which
would have allowed me to single-step through the code and check
registers would have been greatly beneficial! What I ended up doing
was compiling the code for my PC and then single-stepping through it
to find the bug.

So anyway I'd like to ask something. For someone like me, who has an
interest in embedded systems as a hobby, who wants to be able to
program a microcontroller using a small USB-interface programmer, who
wants to be able to do in-circuit debugging, and who wants to work
with a microcontroller that has:
1) Plenty of IO pins (as much as 20 or even more)
2) A-to-D converter
3) Interrupts
4) Timers

What's the best microcontroller and programmer combo to go for? I'm
pretty happy with the Pickit1 but it can't program anything larger
than a 14-pin chip (or then again maybe it can but I'm not clued in).

People here have me paranoid about using PIC chips; I've gotten
responses such as "don't use the PIC, use a real microcontroller", but
I'd like to know why people have such a poor opinion of PIC's here.
Having used them myself, and having used the Pickit1, and also having
seen YouTube videos of some mad stuff that people have done with PIC
chips, they seem pretty cool to me. Of course I'm not a veteran that's
being playing around with microcontrollers for the last 20 years, but
if there's a rational reason why I should PIC's then I'll be happy to
listen.

Also, if I you have a microcontroller from a reputable manufacturer,
e.g. a PIC16F684 from Microchip, and if you use it correctly (i.e. not
drawing too much current form the IO pins, not running it at too high
a clock speed), then should it pretty much last forever? I mean if I
programmed one now and put it in a circuit, should it still be doing
its job perfectly in 80 years time?

I know I've written a lot in this post, but really I just want to be
sure I'm using the right equipment before I go too far. Actually one
other thing: What's the most used microcontroller in the world, i.e.
the micrcontroller that's used in the greatest amount of products all
over the world?

On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
<> wrote:

>Are all of these the same thing?
>
>Once I take a fancy to a particular microcontroller, the first thing
>I'll want is a piece of hardware I can use for programming the chip.
>Now given that I'm just one person working away in my bedroom with my
>laptop, I'm not looking for some sort of industrial product the size
>of a washing machine that can program 72 thousand chips every minute.
>I'd want something small, no larger than the size of a CD dewel case,
>that can hook up to my laptop via USB port / COM port / LPT port. It
>shouldn't be too expensive either, but if it's pricey then I'll look
>for a second-hand one on eBay.

*Most* microcontrollers have moved away from parallel, high-voltage
programming to on-chip, in-circuit serial programming (although some
will support both). Generally, the in-circuit programmers are fairly
cheap. However, they also generally only work with one family of
microcontrollers. There are general-purpose programmers that will do
microcontrollers, EPROMs, PALs, GALs, etc. Cost a bunch; you probably
won't need one.

Some dev boards come with a programmer (TI's MSP430 do (or used to))
and some dev boards can be used as programmers (the AVR STK-500, for
example). Others, like the ARM7TDMI can (mostly) use an inexpensive
JTAG (Wiggler and clones). Family-specific programmers are out there,
too although some can do double duty: Atmel's AVR ISP programmer can
do AVR chips as well as Atmel's flavour of 8051 chips (AT89S-series).

>Nowadays, are there some microcontrollers that are purely for "use in
>industry"? What I mean to say is: Is there some microcontrollers out
>there for which you CANNOT get a small programmer board, or perhaps
>one's for which the programmer board is ridiculously expensive?

There's bound to be some but I'd guess very few, since bringing up a
new uC is expedited if there's known-good hardware to bang on.

>As I've mentioned here countless times, then only microcontroller I've
>any experience with is the PIC16F684 because we used it in my college
>course. I use the Pickit 1 to program it, which is a small programmer
>board about the size of a credit card that connects to my PC via USB,
>and the software I use for programming it is the PIC C compiler in
>conjunction with MPLAB. The software was free, and I got the
>development board for €10 through my college (which is about 15 US
>dollars), so I'm pretty chuffed with that.
>
>What do people call these "programmer boards" nowadays? I've heard
>terms like "evaluation kit", "development board", but I don't know
>what the difference is, if any.

No practical difference. An eval kit may have only power and I/O
connectors where a dev kit may include a small prototyping area. Or
maybe the other way around ...

>I've also heard of something called "in-circuit programming" whereby
>you can leave the chip in the circuit when you're programming it,
>which I suppose is convenient. For my most recent project I simply
>plucked the chip on and off the board, putting it into the Pickit 1 to
>program and then putting it back in the circuit.

Even with a socketed DIP, it's nice not to have to wrestle with it.
And there are programming adapters for SMT devices to use with general
purpose programmers but that means two adapters (one for the board,
one for the programmer) and those things are bleedin' expensive.
Figure that most/all newer chips will support (and may JUST support)
serial in-circuit programming, via JTAG or their own, proprietary
protocol.

>What I'm extremely interested in, however, are the development boards
>that let you actually debug the program, i.e. you can have the chip in
>its circuit and, while the program is running, you can pause the
>program and check the value of registers, and also single-step through
>instructions. In my most recent project, there were times when a bug
>in the program resulted in my circuit board doing absolutely nothing,
>so I hadn't a clue what was going on. Some sort of debugger which
>would have allowed me to single-step through the code and check
>registers would have been greatly beneficial! What I ended up doing
>was compiling the code for my PC and then single-stepping through it
>to find the bug.

Certainly useful but not as much as one may imagine since, when
halting and single-stepping, think about what happens to on-chip
peripherals like timers and interrupts. On the other hand, a new
microcontroller's documentation can be obscure and can have related
"you must do this" and "you must NOT do that" sections scattered about
more than one may wish, so halting to examine register values can be
an aid to understanding The Fine Manual. CAN peripherals, for some
reason, seem prone to obfuscation ...

>So anyway I'd like to ask something. For someone like me, who has an
>interest in embedded systems as a hobby, who wants to be able to
>program a microcontroller using a small USB-interface programmer, who
>wants to be able to do in-circuit debugging, and who wants to work
>with a microcontroller that has:
> 1) Plenty of IO pins (as much as 20 or even more)
> 2) A-to-D converter
> 3) Interrupts
> 4) Timers
>
>What's the best

There is no best.

>microcontroller and programmer combo to go for? I'm
>pretty happy with the Pickit1 but it can't program anything larger
>than a 14-pin chip (or then again maybe it can but I'm not clued in).
>
>People here have me paranoid about using PIC chips; I've gotten
>responses such as "don't use the PIC, use a real microcontroller",

PICs are used an awful lot by industry. When I popped the cover on the
controller board for my HVAC system, I found a PIC. They're in lots of
white goods.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/c8480f9711574df7>
has some opinions on some architectures. One quote from this is on my
bulletin-board. ;-)

"In spite of its numerous shortcomings a PIC is a remarkably useful
tool for certain tasks. But then, so is a sharp stick."

> but
>I'd like to know why people have such a poor opinion of PIC's here.
>Having used them myself, and having used the Pickit1, and also having
>seen YouTube videos of some mad stuff that people have done with PIC
>chips, they seem pretty cool to me. Of course I'm not a veteran that's
>being playing around with microcontrollers for the last 20 years, but
>if there's a rational reason why I should PIC's then I'll be happy to
>listen.

Personal preferences:
8 bits: AVR
16 bits: MSP430
32 bits: NXP's LPC2xxx ARM7s

>Also, if I you have a microcontroller from a reputable manufacturer,
>e.g. a PIC16F684 from Microchip, and if you use it correctly (i.e. not
>drawing too much current form the IO pins, not running it at too high
>a clock speed), then should it pretty much last forever? I mean if I
>programmed one now and put it in a circuit, should it still be doing
>its job perfectly in 80 years time?

Flash memory has a limited lifetime, usually (always?) spec'd at 85C
and typically for 10 to 30'ish years It will probably last a product's
lifetime at 25C but that needs to be considered for really long lived
items.

>I know I've written a lot in this post, but really I just want to be
>sure I'm using the right equipment before I go too far. Actually one
>other thing: What's the most used microcontroller in the world, i.e.
>the micrcontroller that's used in the greatest amount of products all
>over the world?

Whatever the automotive manufacturers are using nowadays. The number
of uC per car is going up and there are a lot of cars...

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

In message
<3770ee9c-4cb9-4433-b6de->,
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <> writes
>Are all of these the same thing?
>
>Once I take a fancy to a particular microcontroller, the first thing
>I'll want is a piece of hardware I can use for programming the chip.
>Now given that I'm just one person working away in my bedroom with my
>laptop,

>As I've mentioned here countless times, then only microcontroller I've
>any experience with is the PIC16F684 because we used it in my college
>course.

Yet you lectured many very experienced people here and on C.l.c that you
knew what you were doing writing portable code and were abusive to many.

I hope you learned your lesson.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message
<3770ee9c-4cb9-4433-b6de->,
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <> writes
>Are all of these the same thing?
>
>Once I take a fancy to a particular microcontroller, the first thing
>I'll want is a piece of hardware I can use for programming the chip.
>Now given that I'm just one person working away in my bedroom with my
>laptop, I'm not looking for some sort of industrial product the size
>of a washing machine that can program 72 thousand chips every minute.
>I'd want something small, no larger than the size of a CD dewel case,
>that can hook up to my laptop via USB port / COM port / LPT port. It
>shouldn't be too expensive either, but if it's pricey then I'll look
>for a second-hand one on eBay.

Try

http://www.olimex.com


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Jun 1, 2:00*am, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:

> The most used CORE, by far, is the 80C51.


By "core", do you mean the processing of instructions? If two
microcontrollers have the same set of assembler instructions, then are
they said to have the same core?


> The largest 8 bit uC vendor by dollars is Freescale, and by volume is
> Microchip.


When you say Microchip, are you talking about PIC chips, e.g. the
PIC16F684? Is the PIC really the most ubiquitious uC?

So do Freescale make more advanced uC's that cost more?

On Jun 1, 1:19*am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

> Personal preferences:
> 8 bits: AVR
> 16 bits: MSP430
> 32 bits: NXP's LPC2xxx ARM7s


What influences your choice of 8-Bit, 16-Bit or 32-Bit? Is one more
expensive than the other? I understand that if you're commonly dealing
with 32-Bit numbers on an 8-Bit uC, that you'll be using 4
instructions (at least) all the time instead of 1. So, before
embarking on the project, do you have a think about what kind of
numbers you'll be working with?

I've only ever done one full embedded project and I didn't use
anything larger than an 8-Bit number. However, if I were making
something like an internet router, would I be wise to get a 32-Bit
microcontroller because I'd be dealing with IP addresses all the time?
Or then again, what if I can find an 8-Bit CPU that runs 6 times
faster and is half the price... would I be better going with that?

What other reasons are there for deciding on bitness of the core?

On Jun 1, 1:16*am, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:

> > I mean if I
> > programmed one now and put it in a circuit, should it still be doing
> > its job perfectly in 80 years time?
>
> I doubt any manufacturer would be willing to give you that assurance. *I
> don't remember seeing any flash memory with a quoted lifetime beyond 20
> years.
>
> Jack Gansle had an article a decade back or so IIRC about running into
> that issue with some of the original Intel EPROMs in the field.


But aren't the old PC's like the 286's still running perfectly? Or are
they on the brink of failure in the next few years?

I've got two cars at the moment, one is from 1990 and the other is
from 1991, and they're both running well. That's an 18-year-old car
and a 17-year-old car. Granted, one of them is a Toyota and is a much
nicer driver than the other, but they're both still running well.
Would it be fair to say that today's cars won't last as long because
of all the electronics in them? Will the engine's electronic
management unit fail before the engine does?

In message
<0246d634-8d49-44b5-b35c->,
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <> writes
>On Jun 1, 1:16*am, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
>
>> > I mean if I
>> > programmed one now and put it in a circuit, should it still be doing
>> > its job perfectly in 80 years time?
>>
>> I doubt any manufacturer would be willing to give you that assurance. *I
>> don't remember seeing any flash memory with a quoted lifetime beyond 20
>> years.
>>
>> Jack Gansle had an article a decade back or so IIRC about running into
>> that issue with some of the original Intel EPROMs in the field.
>
>
>But aren't the old PC's like the 286's still running perfectly?

Possibly. If you can find any and more to the point any cards for them.
They stopped making ISA cards some years ago. Also you have a problem
with software. Not sure 286's had CD's and floppy drives have a finite
life.

> Or are
>they on the brink of failure in the next few years?

Yes. Hard drives probably are, also floppy drives. The contacts in
the slots will tarnish over time and RAM has a finite life too... many
years it is true but...

Also of course the weak point is the PUS and the electrolytic capacitors
on the mother board

>I've got two cars at the moment, one is from 1990 and the other is
>from 1991, and they're both running well. That's an 18-year-old car
>and a 17-year-old car.

You really have no understanding of electronics or software do you?

>Would it be fair to say that today's cars won't last as long because
>of all the electronics in them? Will the engine's electronic
>management unit fail before the engine does?

No. The engine requires servicing and will wear out in *00,000 miles.
But us serviced and as long as parts are available the engine will last
a while... other moving parts will also wear.

Think about the amount of maintenance and spare required for cars
(dependant on usage and environment)

The electronics will outlast the engine but the problem is getting
spares.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message
<0baf197d-d9b7-4ffd-8bc3->,
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <> writes
>On Jun 1, 2:00*am, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>> The most used CORE, by far, is the 80C51.
>
>
>By "core", do you mean the processing of instructions? If two
>microcontrollers have the same set of assembler instructions, then are
>they said to have the same core?

Sort of.
As far as most programmers are concerned the 8051is a family with the
same core as code that runs on one will run on another, even at a binary
level... but why am I telling you this as you are the resident genius on
portability...

In fact for the 8051 family there are over 40 cores currently in use.
Whilst the basic instruction set and the basic core has the same API
they are very different being 12, 6, 4, 2 and single cycle cores with
several different memory systems. Especially the extended ones...

There is a Lot more to it than just changing header files.

However whilst, if you are careful a small program from one 8051 will
run on any 8051.... but once you start using the peripherals and
extended memory and registers you loose the portability even though you
can use the came compiler for all variants. .

>> The largest 8 bit uC vendor by dollars is Freescale, and by volume is
>> Microchip.
>When you say Microchip, are you talking about PIC chips,

Wow! Your lack of knowledge even on the things you have worked on is
astounding!!!

When some one tells you that you don't have the first idea about
portable C you really only argued because you had so little grasp and
understanding of the subject. I hope you realise that now.

> e.g. the
>PIC16F684? Is the PIC really the most ubiquitious uC?

No. But PICs in general might be. They are very low cost small parts.
Though about 8 years ago the 8051 family was the most ubiquitous with
about 30% of all micros (including the x86 family as most PC's up to
then had a couple of 8051's in them)

>So do Freescale make more advanced uC's that cost more?

Yes... The Power PC range.
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...d=0162468rH3bT
dG

BTW what is your collage course on?
It does not appear to be on software or electronics.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 04:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
<> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 1:19*am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>
>> Personal preferences:
>> 8 bits: AVR
>> 16 bits: MSP430
>> 32 bits: NXP's LPC2xxx ARM7s
>
>
>What influences your choice of 8-Bit, 16-Bit or 32-Bit? Is one more
>expensive than the other? I understand that if you're commonly dealing
>with 32-Bit numbers on an 8-Bit uC, that you'll be using 4
>instructions (at least) all the time instead of 1. So, before
>embarking on the project, do you have a think about what kind of
>numbers you'll be working with?
>
>I've only ever done one full embedded project and I didn't use
>anything larger than an 8-Bit number. However, if I were making
>something like an internet router, would I be wise to get a 32-Bit
>microcontroller because I'd be dealing with IP addresses all the time?
>Or then again, what if I can find an 8-Bit CPU that runs 6 times
>faster and is half the price... would I be better going with that?
>
>What other reasons are there for deciding on bitness of the core?

Essentially, matching the requirements and constraints to the
solution. Engineering, ya know. What parts are actually available? Is
EOL an issue, and what's the manufacturer's EOL history? What's the
cost? The lifecycle quantity? Production quantity? Should we spin our
own board or use somebody else's? What peripherals are needed? How
complex is it? What tools are available? Cost? How are they supported?
Personal project, where free is good and the GPL isn't an issue or
commercial where it may be?

An ATtiny15 that has 8 pins and no RAM at all, just the processor
registers and a 3-level stack, was great for a little temperature
monitor and fan controller.

OTOH, an Infineon C515C (MCS51-family) was the solution for something
else because it was living on the best-fit SBC.

For a CAN gateway, is it better to use a couple of small 8-bitters
with one CAN controller each and an SPI link between them, or an ARM
with two integral CAN controllers? It depends ...

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA