Prev: Need help on getting the original source code of eZ430 Chronos
Next: Which arm7 dev board to buy?
From: David Brown on 11 Jun 2010 03:24
On 10/06/2010 19:12, Jon Kirwan wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown
> <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by
>> definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully.
>>
>> I have no facts or figures to back this up,
>
> I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then
> read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's
> seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there.
>

It /is/ apocryphal - it's just my impression based on people I've talked
to and things I have read over the years. The posts here from
experienced developers who actively moved to PICs are eroding that
impression a little, but they don't actually contradict it. As you say,
you are a data point against this theory, and so are others here, but
most people in this group are experienced and informed developers - it's
a biased sample.

But it's all just a theory. If you don't agree, then that's fine. It's
not as though we are arguing about facts, such as the best way to format
C code :-)

>> but I would expect that most
>> PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller.
>
> I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long
> experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going
> back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975.
>
>> Relatively few will
>> have switched from other devices to PICs.
>
> Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point.
>
> Jon

From: David Brown on 11 Jun 2010 03:31
On 10/06/2010 20:29, WangoTango wrote:
> In article<927216hmj2d0ia2ka39vefa2trqnit0rdb(a)4ax.com>,
> jonk(a)infinitefactors.org says...
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown
>> <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by
>>> definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully.
>>>
>>> I have no facts or figures to back this up,
>>
>> I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then
>> read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's
>> seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there.
>>
>>> but I would expect that most
>>> PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller.
>>
>> I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long
>> experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going
>> back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975.
>>
>>> Relatively few will
>>> have switched from other devices to PICs.
>>
>> Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point.
>>
>> Jon
>>
> Me too.
> I was a BIG Motorola/Freescale, Zilog, and Philips guy for ~15 years
> before switching most of our products over to different PIC variants,
> and have done lots and lots of new products using PICs. A good cross
> compiler can hide a lot of the nasty stuff, and the newer parts have
> fixed some of the more annoying gotcha's. I like the fact that they
> still make a lot of DIP parts, and they seem to always have a pin for
> pin compatible upwards migration path. Something Motorola couldn't seem
> to get their heads wrapped around.
>
> Jim

I've heard this "they make DIP package parts" as a reason for using PICs
many times. To my mind, this re-enforces the impression that these
devices are aimed at small and hobby developers (with an aim to getting
a long term professional customer in the future).

As a professional developer, I haven't had use for a DIP package
microcontroller for over a decade, except for OTP devices. They are
very rarely of use for serious prototyping or development - after all,
none of the other components on a typical card are DIP any more, so you
have no choice but to make up a proper card anyway. If you just want to
try out some ideas, you use a ready-made evaluation card or development
board. And if you really want a microcontroller in a DIP format for
testing, there are endless varieties of ARMs and other microcontrollers
mounted on a DIP-40 board package.


From: Jon Kirwan on 11 Jun 2010 04:34
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:24:01 +0200, David Brown wrote:

><snip>
>If you don't agree, then that's fine. It's
>not as though we are arguing about facts, such as the best way to format
>C code :-)
><snip>

Hehe. Okay.

Anyway, I guess it's just that I never see all that Microchip
marketing (any more than I see all the other companies doing
it) to "people with little or no experience of
microcontrollers," as you wrote earlier. Not much different
from the mix I see from other companies competing against
Microchip's market, anyway.

You'd mentioned web pages. Sure there are web pages for PIC
and web pages for AVR and web pages for the BASIC Stamp, and
Motorola, etc. People out there use stuff and where they are
able they write about what they do and learn about. The
companies themselves sometimes set up and fund the web server
for user groups, too, from time to time (perhaps Atmel comes
to mind, too?)

You'd mentioned books, too, as though that is another place
that Microchip also competes hard and maybe outcompetes.
There are books written by authors who choose what they want.
For example, just to provide a random encounter I just had
buying a book last week, David Cook's Intermediate Robot
Building book discusses at length the Atmel ATtiny84. He
also does, at the very end in "Choosing a Microcontroller"
subsection, talk about AVR 8 bit micros generally, the
Parallax BASIC Stamp, with a one sentence nod to the PIC.
That's not atypical, either. I certainly don't "feel" or
"sense" any author-bias in book publishing related to
Microchip. If anything, somewhat towards the opposite is
probably the case if my book shelf of such books is an
indication.

If Microchip is "targeting this area very successfully" (re:
ignorant beginners) as you say, it's not manifest to me.
Atmel does at least as well, so far as I can tell, and
probably better.

I think their real strength, the one that actually is the
telling reason for the profit dollars they make where others
don't do nearly so well, is found elsewhere.

As you say, that's just the view of one person who is already
obviously an outlier data point just by the fact that I still
read and sometimes post in a newsgroup. That all by itself
makes me as rare as hens' teeth. Along with the rest of us
anachronisms. ;)

Jon
From: Thad Smith on 11 Jun 2010 23:32
David Brown wrote:
> I have no facts or figures to back this up, but I would expect that most
> PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. Relatively few will
> have switched from other devices to PICs.

Before PICs I worked on 68HC05, AVR, 8051.

I first used PICs because of a good combination of price and size at the low end.

I am now working with PIC18s that have a good price for the feature set and memory.

There are some aspects of the architecture that force awkward code constructs
with the chosen compiler, but have filled several niches well.

--
Thad
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Need help on getting the original source code of eZ430 Chronos
Next: Which arm7 dev board to buy?