Re: what's wrong with a pic ?
- From: Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 19:31:04 GMT
On 21 May 2006 22:36:45 -0700, "purple_stars" <webnews1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
just curious ...
i keep hearing, "i hate the pics", everytime i turn around. someone is
always dissing the pic processor. i'm sure with good reason, i mean, a
lot of people here seem to have a varied background with a number of
processors and i would think they could voice a well reasoned opinion
on the matter. why hate the pic ? i don't see anything wrong with it,
really. i don't like the banked memory in most of the parts, and in my
opinion the risc is a little "too risc" for my tastes, "add with carry"
would have been nice for example. but overall i find the chip easy to
work with, and it seems adequate for a lot of tasks. what is it, is it
just the democratization the little things cause, that is to say .. any
riff raff can use them, or is it something else ? lol
I liked reading Jim G's comment, because it is a segue:
: I have to smile :)
:
: First you say "i don't see anything wrong with it"
:
: then you add
:
: "i don't like the banked memory in most of the parts"
: "the risc is a little "too risc"
: "add with carry" would have been nice
:
: so that's three things wrong, even before anyone replies..post.
: I'll leave others to add to this list...
It's hard to deal your kind of question, where you've already laid a
foundation that has to first be undone before responding or else where
it must be somehow dealt with. But in any case, I agree with the
banked memory point where it applies (not a concern on the PIC18, for
example.) I take the "too risc" to mean that its internal operation
is "too exposed to view." In that sense, I agree. For teaching CPU
design, this can actually be an advantage -- as the student really
gets to see more of the details that are otherwise somewhat hidden.
The lack of an "add with carry" is annoying, but the bit test/skip
works and is helpful elsewhere. PIC18, which I'm using now, includes
an add with carry, though.
Why do I like Microchip for designs?
I just recently had a problem with an old production tool from
Microchip. The power switch wasn't working quite right and I needed
to wobble it into the middle in order to turn it on. Now, keep in
mind that Microchip doesn't sell this unit, anymore. It's old. But
it is a production tool. So they support it.
Microchip only said: "We're sending you out a new unit. When you get
the box, put the old one in there and send it back to us." I received
it the next day.
Same thing for an old module for that old unit, which also seemed to
be showing 'weak drivers,' by way of a message at powerup. I was
shipped another one of those under the same circumstances. They do
still sell those modules and other ones, as well, because they support
their old production tools even after they don't sell the main units
anymore.
This production programmer was purchased in 1991, by the way. 15
years ago.
I should also mention that their support staff never once gave me the
"it's not currently supported" message.
By comparison, I have a similar circumstance with Analog Devices,
using an old tool I also bought in and around 1991 for their ADSP-21xx
line. I was told that the tool was no longer supported, that I
couldn't get replacements, and that they couldn't help me with
problems except to suggest a couple of places where I visit their web
pages.
This is just one such example. Although I also don't like many
aspects of the PIC chips, as viewed as a programmer, when thinking
about designing with a product where I want and may need support for a
product or product line a decade or two into the future, their actual
demonstrated support tells me a lot.
As far as code size issues go related to C compilation, a point I see
elsewhere mentioned, it's not terribly important so long as their is a
part which has _enough_ program space for the application at hand. Of
course, all the other usual culprits in deciding appropriateness for
an application apply -- price of the program space vs competing
products; power consumption and heating; packaging; etc. But assuming
there are some matches within that territory, Microchip support for
their production tools is unparalleled and they don't ask for the size
of the company when they do that -- so this is probably more important
for small and midsized designs and embedded companies like those I'm
more exposed to.
On the other hand, I'm also using other microcontrollers for products.
So I'm not married to Microchip. But if part of the consideration for
the design is a long life and support for older tools as the future
unfolds is important to the project, then Microchip with have at least
one leg-up on it in that regard.
Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: what's wrong with a pic ?
- From: Leon
- Re: what's wrong with a pic ?
- References:
- what's wrong with a pic ?
- From: purple_stars
- what's wrong with a pic ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Low cost weight sensor ?
- Next by Date: Re: I need a disassembler for AMD 188
- Previous by thread: Re: what's wrong with a pic ?
- Next by thread: Re: what's wrong with a pic ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
