 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Home-use microcontroller purchase
There are 15 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 15.
|
Author: DavidDate: 15:28 12-01-08
|
|
Hi:
I took a few microcontrollers classes years ago and would like to start
using one at home. I've been looking at a few solutions and would like
feedback on them. My first project will likely be creating a motor
controller (dc stepper or servo).
I am familiar with using the HC11 and this looks like a decent purchase:
http://www.evbplus.com/. I am not clear on the software here. What Windows
application would you use to program the HCS12?
I have also heard quite a bit about the AVR line and have been considering
purchasing a Dragon programmer and an AVR IC. The software is free but I
have not worked with AVR in the past and the programmer does not come with a
single cable. On the plus side, the purchase would be less expensive than
the aforementioned one.
Any thoughts?
Thank you,
David
|
|
|
|
Author: Freelance Embedded Systems EngineerDate: 17:49 12-01-08
|
|
David wrote:
> I took a few microcontrollers classes years ago and would like to start
> using one at home. I've been looking at a few solutions and would like
> feedback on them. My first project will likely be creating a motor
> controller (dc stepper or servo).
>
> I am familiar with using the HC11 and this looks like a decent purchase:
> http://www.evbplus.com/. I am not clear on the software here. What Windows
> application would you use to program the HCS12?
>
> I have also heard quite a bit about the AVR line and have been considering
> purchasing a Dragon programmer and an AVR IC. The software is free but I
> have not worked with AVR in the past and the programmer does not come with a
> single cable. On the plus side, the purchase would be less expensive than
> the aforementioned one.
> Any thoughts? Thank you, David
David,
The evbplus manual says that they provide a Windows program to download programs to the
target. It's a nice system. You get a lot for what you pay. If there using it for
teaching, it should be easy to get up to speed with and they probably have some reasonable
manuals. And if you already know the HC12, you'll get moving quicker.
http://www.evbplus.com/download_hcs12/dragon12_plus_hcs12_manual_v101.pdf
AVR is also good choice. Large range of processor and lots of open-source software.
Good way to get into the GNU C compiler.
If you want to get started quickly and cheaply and you want to work primarily in
"C", and don't initially require a lot of I/O or RAM, then I would consider one
of the "usb stick" options such as:
-TI EZ430-F2013 http://www.ti-estore.com/
$20 or $49 wireless
-Silabs ToolStick http://www.silabs.com/ or Mouser.com $29.
8051 based.
The TI board is kind of nice. 16-bit, not 8-bit processor and comes with 16 bit ADC.
None of these "stick" tools provide much room for adding a motor controller
chip. So if you need some real estate, you might look at a more expensive board or make
plans to interface to your own protoboard.
Silabs.com have an introductory board for about $129 that has some development room on
the side, comes with Keil development tool that supports only 4K of program space. Some
of their boards have ADC and at least one has a 24-bit ADC if you need microvolt
resolution. You only need a USB port to program them.
Microchip has their PicKit which works similarly and you only need a USB port to program
it.
|
|
|
|
Author: john jardineDate: 18:04 12-01-08
|
|
"David" <davidd31415@yoowhoo.com> wrote in message
news:n82dnQxku5eeuRTanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hi:
>
> I took a few microcontrollers classes years ago and would like to start
> using one at home. I've been looking at a few solutions and would like
> feedback on them. My first project will likely be creating a motor
> controller (dc stepper or servo).
>
> I am familiar with using the HC11 and this looks like a decent purchase:
> http://www.evbplus.com/. I am not clear on the software here. What
Windows
> application would you use to program the HCS12?
>
> I have also heard quite a bit about the AVR line and have been considering
> purchasing a Dragon programmer and an AVR IC. The software is free but I
> have not worked with AVR in the past and the programmer does not come with
a
> single cable. On the plus side, the purchase would be less expensive than
> the aforementioned one.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thank you,
>
> David
>
I notice you haven't mentioned any PICs. Good move :)
Personally I'd suggest AVR. They're oh so easy to work with.
|
|
|
|
Author: David L. JonesDate: 19:23 12-01-08
|
|
On Jan 13, 7:28 am, "David" <davidd31...@yoowhoo.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I took a few microcontrollers classes years ago and would like to start
> using one at home. I've been looking at a few solutions and would like
> feedback on them. My first project will likely be creating a motor
> controller (dc stepper or servo).
>
> I am familiar with using the HC11 and this looks like a decent
purchase:http://www.evbplus.com/. I am not clear on the software here. What Windows
> application would you use to program the HCS12?
>
> I have also heard quite a bit about the AVR line and have been considering
> purchasing a Dragon programmer and an AVR IC. The software is free but I
> have not worked with AVR in the past and the programmer does not come with a
> single cable. On the plus side, the purchase would be less expensive than
> the aforementioned one.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thank you,
>
> David
The "big two" micros are either AVR or PIC. They have by far the most
beginner info and support groups, so you'd want a pretty good reason
to go for something else.
Both AVR and PIC have free software and C compilers, I'd avoid the
"open source" ones, like AVRGCC, they typically have a much steeper
learning curve than the others. YOu don't want to be fighting your
development tools just to flash a LED.
Do yourself a favour and DON'T program in assembler, use C or BASIC,
you life will be so much easier.
If you want to keep things REAL easy, then try the PIC-AXE:
http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/
No mess, no fuss for the beginner, you can even program using flow
charts.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Author: David L. JonesDate: 19:31 12-01-08
|
|
On Jan 13, 10:04 am, "john jardine" <john.jard...@idnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "David" <davidd31...@yoowhoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:n82dnQxku5eeuRTanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Hi:
>
> > I took a few microcontrollers classes years ago and would like to start
> > using one at home. I've been looking at a few solutions and would like
> > feedback on them. My first project will likely be creating a motor
> > controller (dc stepper or servo).
>
> > I am familiar with using the HC11 and this looks like a decent purchase:
> >http://www.evbplus.com/. I am not clear on the software here. What
> Windows
> > application would you use to program the HCS12?
>
> > I have also heard quite a bit about the AVR line and have been considering
> > purchasing a Dragon programmer and an AVR IC. The software is free but I
> > have not worked with AVR in the past and the programmer does not come with
> a
> > single cable. On the plus side, the purchase would be less expensive than
> > the aforementioned one.
>
> > Any thoughts?
>
> > Thank you,
>
> > David
>
> I notice you haven't mentioned any PICs. Good move :)
> Personally I'd suggest AVR. They're oh so easy to work with.
Really?
My first experience with AVR was horrible.
The STK500 "starter kit" was a nightmare to use. Even when it claimed
to support the ATtiny26 chip I wanted to use, it simply didn't work.
Atmel admitted the mistake and ultimately fixed it, but that didn't
help me at the time.
Also, I unknowingly (and very easily) disabled the fuse bit for the
internal oscillator or something using the ISP port, that completely
disabled the ISP port. The only way the reprogram the chip was to
remove it from circuit and use a parallel programmer.
The chip simply stops working and you don't know why. That would be an
absolutely horrible position to be in for a beginner to be in.
AVR's have traps for young players, just like PIC's do.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidDate: 23:19 12-01-08
|
|
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b590e846-db7f-4b58-99b0-db67eab30007@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The "big two" micros are either AVR or PIC. They have by far the most
> beginner info and support groups, so you'd want a pretty good reason
> to go for something else.
Hi David,
When learning assembly in high school we used Intel chips and for my two
micro classes in college we used Motorola. I'm surprised they're not in the
"big" list...
What big advantages would an AVR chip offer over Motorola to make it
"easier" to use?
I was thinking Motorola might be a bit better because of popularity but
hearing you identify AVR as one of the big two makes me think again.
Thanks,
David
> Both AVR and PIC have free software and C compilers, I'd avoid the
> "open source" ones, like AVRGCC, they typically have a much steeper
> learning curve than the others. YOu don't want to be fighting your
> development tools just to flash a LED.
> Do yourself a favour and DON'T program in assembler, use C or BASIC,
> you life will be so much easier.
>
> If you want to keep things REAL easy, then try the PIC-AXE:
> http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/
> No mess, no fuss for the beginner, you can even program using flow
> charts.
>
> Dave.
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom2000Date: 05:10 13-01-08
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:23:07 -0800 (PST), "David L. Jones"
<altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>If you want to keep things REAL easy, then try the PIC-AXE:
>http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/
>No mess, no fuss for the beginner, you can even program using flow
>charts.
>
>Dave.
I like the idea of micros that you can program with free development
systems and no requirement for dedicated programming hardware such as
the Picaxe that Dave mentioned above.
In addition to the Picaxe, there's an AVR version using (most often
the ATmega168 running at 16 MHz.) It's known as the Arduino.
Reasonably good performance, lots of memory and I/O, cheap (with lots
of boards available for not much money) and a free C development
system. You can download your program to the processor over a serial
or USB link.
Here's an example of a board that provides good value:
http://www.nkcelectronics.com/freeduino-arduino-diecimila-compatible-board-complete-kit.
html
You can read all about it and download the free development system
here:
http://www.arduino.cc/
I use PICs, Picaxe chips, and the Arduino. They all have their
merits. If I was just starting from scratch, I'd begin with the
Arduino.
Good luck, and have fun!
Tom
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 07:10 13-01-08
|
|
"David L. Jones" wrote:
> The "big two" micros are either AVR or PIC.
And still the 8051.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 07:14 13-01-08
|
|
David wrote:
> "David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b590e846-db7f-4b58-99b0-db67eab30007@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The "big two" micros are either AVR or PIC. They have by far the
most
> > beginner info and support groups, so you'd want a pretty good reason
> > to go for something else.
>
> Hi David,
>
> When learning assembly in high school we used Intel chips and for my two
> micro classes in college we used Motorola. I'm surprised they're not in the
> "big" list...
Motorola seemed to lose interest as so did Intel ultimately but Intel's designs
(basically the 8051) were widely licenced.
So the 8051 is still going stong with new variants with all sorts of
enhancements appearing regularly from the likes of Philips (NXP) and Atmel. The
'8051' just keeps getting better and better and they all have the same basic
core and are code compatible with each other.
A restriction of the original 8051 was a non-static design. That's fixed in the
new versions where you can stop the clock and still retain ALL the data,
registers etc whilst dropping to uA power consumption.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: john jardineDate: 09:40 13-01-08
|
|
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29a5a68a-c96d-4704-a448-b0fa1069e71f@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> > I notice you haven't mentioned any PICs. Good move :)
> > Personally I'd suggest AVR. They're oh so easy to work with.
>
> Really?
> My first experience with AVR was horrible.
> The STK500 "starter kit" was a nightmare to use. Even when it claimed
> to support the ATtiny26 chip I wanted to use, it simply didn't work.
> Atmel admitted the mistake and ultimately fixed it, but that didn't
> help me at the time.
> Also, I unknowingly (and very easily) disabled the fuse bit for the
> internal oscillator or something using the ISP port, that completely
> disabled the ISP port. The only way the reprogram the chip was to
> remove it from circuit and use a parallel programmer.
> The chip simply stops working and you don't know why. That would be an
> absolutely horrible position to be in for a beginner to be in.
> AVR's have traps for young players, just like PIC's do.
>
> Dave.
I've been there!.
I'm using an old STK200 I was given last month but after 10 years grief and
hair-pulling with the PICs I've the (dubious?) benefit of being exquisitely
presensitised to possible fuse bit problems, hence the AVR programming setup
has been fine since day one.
Other than that I've found the AVR has 'clean' internals, lots of
instructions and from an engineering application POV runs about 6-7 times
faster than the PICs.
[Now realise I should have changed over to AVR much earlier. Positive
comment in these groups made the changeover attractive].
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard SerianiDate: 10:44 13-01-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom2000 <abuse@earthlink.net> writes:
> I like the idea of micros that you can program with free development
> systems and no requirement for dedicated programming hardware such as
> the Picaxe that Dave mentioned above.
That's why I like the R8Cs. They only need a serial link (TTL,
auto-baud-detect) to program, assuming you don't mind manually
jumpering the MODE pin and hitting reset for it. I've got programmers
built from:
* serial line with level converter
* USB to TTL serial converter
* other MCUs
The second two can twiddle the mode and reset pins themselves, for
fully standalone programming.
You can also keep the serial line open after programming to act as a
console for the chip; the pins used are the same as one of its generic
UART peripherals.
|
|
|
|
Author: john jardineDate: 15:27 13-01-08
|
|
"Richard Seriani" <richard_s633@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dlqij.5782$M24.5714@newsfe17.lga...
>
> "john jardine" <john.jardine@idnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13ok8mjkjkiia78@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > ... but after 10 years grief and hair-pulling with the PICs ...>
>
> John,
>
> If PICs were that painful, I'm curious to know why you didn't change
sooner?
>
> Richard
>
Good one!.
Time I started there were no other micros with individually programmable I/O
pins, so invested the time, money and considerable effort to move into PICs.
Resulted in an initial range of products using this micro which over the
years expanded in range and required support and development. New products
naturally used PIC as I was recouping the initial investment and 'a bird in
the hand etc ...'.
Yes, during this time I was cursing Microchip for the PICs obvious
stupidities and cynically assumed that the newer "meetoo" offerings would
also be second rate, as seems the order of the day with much current
product. The recent more-of-exactly-the-same offerings from Microchip forced
my hand.
In an industrial environment it isn't straightforward (or even wise) to
change horses midstream and there's certainly no slack time or money (UK
only?) to allow buying in potential micro samples and equipment, or reading
1000 page manuals and losing a few days on trials and tests.
My AVR switch will have repercussions for years to come but I'm pleased I
made the change.
|
|
|
|
Author: David L. JonesDate: 16:44 13-01-08
|
|
On Jan 13, 3:19 pm, "David" <davidd31...@yoowhoo.com> wrote:
> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:b590e846-db7f-4b58-99b0-db67eab30007@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The "big two" micros are either AVR or PIC. They have by far the
most
> > beginner info and support groups, so you'd want a pretty good reason
> > to go for something else.
>
> Hi David,
>
> When learning assembly in high school we used Intel chips and for my two
> micro classes in college we used Motorola. I'm surprised they're not in the
> "big" list...
>
> What big advantages would an AVR chip offer over Motorola to make it
> "easier" to use?
Not that much, in fact advantages and disadvantages are going to swing
both ways when you compare any two micros.
> I was thinking Motorola might be a bit better because of popularity but
> hearing you identify AVR as one of the big two makes me think again.
When I said AVR and PIC are the "big two" I was referring to
popularity with beginners and hobbyists. What this means is that there
is a much wider choice of starter/learner kits plus beginner books
available for these two micros than probably for all the others
combined. Supports forums are usually more prolific and active too.
At one stage maybe 5 years ago, the PICs were actually the #1 selling
microcontroller in the world by volume, or at least they claimed to
be, but in recent years it's swung around a lot.
This is not to say the others are not popular as well, Motorola are
still massively popular in the industry, and I believe they are still
#1 in the car industry for instance. So there is certainly nothing
wrong with going for say a Motorola, a TI MSP430, Zilog, or an 8051
variant if you want. If you like the look of something, go for it.
But I would still highly recommend you ditch assembler and use a C
compiler. You will be able to write much bigger and more complex
programs, with much greater ease and fewer "traps for young players".
You can still use assembler for parts of your code to keep your hand
in, or speed up critical aspects of your code if needed.
Try not to listen to people too much when it comes to microcontroller
choice, people tend to be very passionate and blinded about these
things. The AVR zealots are particually known for their fierce
devotion. Every micro and associated development tool will have it's
own "quirks" you will run across eventually.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidDate: 17:21 13-01-08
|
|
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dfc17b8-c199-470a-88ee-2d3b9afbe182@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 3:19 pm, "David" <davidd31...@yoowhoo.com> wrote:
>> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
messagenews:b590e846-db7f-4b58-99b0-db67eab30007@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The "big two" micros are either AVR or PIC. They have by far the
most
>> > beginner info and support groups, so you'd want a pretty good reason
>> > to go for something else.
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> When learning assembly in high school we used Intel chips and for my two
>> micro classes in college we used Motorola. I'm surprised they're not in
>> the
>> "big" list...
>>
>> What big advantages would an AVR chip offer over Motorola to make it
>> "easier" to use?
>
> Not that much, in fact advantages and disadvantages are going to swing
> both ways when you compare any two micros.
>
>> I was thinking Motorola might be a bit better because of popularity but
>> hearing you identify AVR as one of the big two makes me think again.
>
> When I said AVR and PIC are the "big two" I was referring to
> popularity with beginners and hobbyists. What this means is that there
> is a much wider choice of starter/learner kits plus beginner books
> available for these two micros than probably for all the others
> combined. Supports forums are usually more prolific and active too.
>
> At one stage maybe 5 years ago, the PICs were actually the #1 selling
> microcontroller in the world by volume, or at least they claimed to
> be, but in recent years it's swung around a lot.
>
> This is not to say the others are not popular as well, Motorola are
> still massively popular in the industry, and I believe they are still
> #1 in the car industry for instance. So there is certainly nothing
> wrong with going for say a Motorola, a TI MSP430, Zilog, or an 8051
> variant if you want. If you like the look of something, go for it.
> But I would still highly recommend you ditch assembler and use a C
> compiler. You will be able to write much bigger and more complex
> programs, with much greater ease and fewer "traps for young players".
> You can still use assembler for parts of your code to keep your hand
> in, or speed up critical aspects of your code if needed.
>
> Try not to listen to people too much when it comes to microcontroller
> choice, people tend to be very passionate and blinded about these
> things. The AVR zealots are particually known for their fierce
> devotion. Every micro and associated development tool will have it's
> own "quirks" you will run across eventually.
>
> Dave.
>
Thanks for the advice Dave. We used C on the Motorolas in college but I'm
not sure if that software is available free of charge. I'm thinking the
price of that may determine my choice.
I know what you mean about the hard-core AVR users. I like to see the
strengths and weakness of all sides before starting. I understand the
argument "AVR is easy to use" from hobbyists but I never found Motorola to
be "difficult to use." In fact, I looked forward to writing microcontroller
code in assembly or C.
David
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
