PIC scope, a funny idea
in [Design]
|
Prev: 4 layer PCB prototype manufacture.
Next: Denon Receiver AVR 1909 seems to loose "volume/power/wattage" when using headphones ?!?
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 5 Apr 2010 15:02 Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:03:54 GMT) it happened > nico(a)puntnl.niks > (Nico Coesel) wrote in <4bba0833.601788593(a)news.planet.nl>: > > >>>Yes, sure. >>>But this is a 3 $ single chip scope, not counting the more expensive 64 x 128 graphics LCD. >>>It is neat that it can be controlled by, and output RS232. >>>Also it can do games ;-) >>>To make it stand alone all that is needed is a second PIC as keyboard controller, >> >>'Second PIC' should trigger: use a real uC that can do all tasks by >>itself. Adding multiple PICs together always results in a kludge. I've >>seen it happen too many times. > > > Some people have seen Elvis still alive too :-) > Here is one that uses 2 PICs and has been working now OK for a long > time, and is used every day: > http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/swr_pic/index.html Does your scope have hidden 100 MHz option or some other secret bonus? By industry standard, it should. > It is a stupid idea that 2 micros should be bad and 1 OK. > It is based on absolutely nothing. Huh? Every other programmable component on the same board is PITA in development and manufacturing. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: Nico Coesel on 5 Apr 2010 15:15 Jan Panteltje <panteltje(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On a sunny day (Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:03:54 GMT) it happened >nico(a)puntnl.niks >(Nico Coesel) wrote in <4bba0833.601788593(a)news.planet.nl>: > >>>Yes, sure. >>>But this is a 3 $ single chip scope, not counting the more expensive 64 x 128 graphics LCD. >>>It is neat that it can be controlled by, and output RS232. >>>Also it can do games ;-) >>>To make it stand alone all that is needed is a second PIC as keyboard controller, >> >>'Second PIC' should trigger: use a real uC that can do all tasks by >>itself. Adding multiple PICs together always results in a kludge. I've >>seen it happen too many times. > >Some people have seen Elvis still alive too :-) >Here is one that uses 2 PICs and has been working now OK for a long >time, and is used every day: > http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/swr_pic/index.html > >It is a stupid idea that 2 micros should be bad and 1 OK. >It is based on absolutely nothing. I make a lot of money redesigning non-working designs based on multiple PIC controllers. Most problems are in the obfustigation due to distribution of functionality. Like you said before: there are not many people that really know how to program. They know how to make a LED blink using a PIC so they think they are ready for the real deal. Since they only know how to use a PIC and are reluctant to widen their horizon they keep adding PICs (*) until the design appears to be ready. Unknowingly they created a device that is a hell to produce (I've seen products with >10 PICs) and a nightmare when it comes to timing and other additional problems (see below). (*) Like the only tool they have is a hammer to put an IKEA closet together. >Following that theory start throwing away your mouse, your keyboard, >whatever else you have that has micros in it, The problem is that anything connecting to something else has some sort of protocol in between. Handling protocols is prone to errors, timing issues, incompatibilities, needs error handling (what if the link breaks or a message is missed?) and it takes extra time to process. Putting everything in one controller solves a lot of potential problems. Your keyboard example is excellent regarding compatibility issues. Ever tried to make an AT keyboard simulator that is guaranteed to work on any PC? -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan Panteltje on 5 Apr 2010 15:38 On a sunny day (Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:02:47 -0500) it happened Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote in <damdneDHst40rifWnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: > > >Jan Panteltje wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:03:54 GMT) it happened >> nico(a)puntnl.niks >> (Nico Coesel) wrote in <4bba0833.601788593(a)news.planet.nl>: >> >> >>>>Yes, sure. >>>>But this is a 3 $ single chip scope, not counting the more expensive 64 x 128 graphics LCD. >>>>It is neat that it can be controlled by, and output RS232. >>>>Also it can do games ;-) >>>>To make it stand alone all that is needed is a second PIC as keyboard controller, >>> >>>'Second PIC' should trigger: use a real uC that can do all tasks by >>>itself. Adding multiple PICs together always results in a kludge. I've >>>seen it happen too many times. >> >> >> Some people have seen Elvis still alive too :-) >> Here is one that uses 2 PICs and has been working now OK for a long >> time, and is used every day: >> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/swr_pic/index.html > >Does your scope have hidden 100 MHz option or some other secret bonus? >By industry standard, it should. LOL, yes, by I do not have the Rigol logo :-) > >> It is a stupid idea that 2 micros should be bad and 1 OK. >> It is based on absolutely nothing. > >Huh? Every other programmable component on the same board is PITA in >development and manufacturing. OK, then remove all components hehe.
From: Jan Panteltje on 5 Apr 2010 15:51 On a sunny day (Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:15:08 GMT) it happened nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote in <4bba30bf.612056406(a)news.planet.nl>: >>It is a stupid idea that 2 micros should be bad and 1 OK. >>It is based on absolutely nothing. > >I make a lot of money redesigning non-working designs based on >multiple PIC controllers. Most problems are in the obfustigation due >to distribution of functionality. I dunno, never came across that problem. >Like you said before: there are not many people that really know how >to program. They know how to make a LED blink using a PIC so they >think they are ready for the real deal. Since they only know how to >use a PIC and are reluctant to widen their horizon they keep adding >PICs (*) until the design appears to be ready. Unknowingly they >created a device that is a hell to produce (I've seen products with >>10 PICs) and a nightmare when it comes to timing and other additional >problems (see below). Possible, but this is s.e.d., and I sort of think most people here know what they are doing. Like I did say, there are 2 things needed for programming 1) know hoe to write the code 2) know about the subject that you write code for. For example if I write for financial markets, I need to know about that subject too. Things like that may put some burden on programmers, but is also a lot of fun. Implementing protocols, and making your own protocols, is a part of programming that also needs learning. Note the graphics protocol in scope_pic, it only uses 2 bytes per pixel by design, is pretty much fool proof, and is very very fast, see the youtube demo: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/lcd_pic/ >(*) Like the only tool they have is a hammer to put an IKEA closet >together. I have an Ikea bench, it only took some imbus screwdriver, no hammers :-) I also have an Ikea table (2 actually) and some other of their stuff. Pretty good stuff. >>Following that theory start throwing away your mouse, your keyboard, >>whatever else you have that has micros in it, > >The problem is that anything connecting to something else has some >sort of protocol in between. Handling protocols is prone to errors, >timing issues, incompatibilities, needs error handling (what if the >link breaks or a message is missed?) and it takes extra time to >process. Putting everything in one controller solves a lot of >potential problems. Not if used in the right way, you are now connected via internet right? If you have problems with protocols, then yes, then you will need to avoid those. >Your keyboard example is excellent regarding compatibility issues. >Ever tried to make an AT keyboard simulator that is guaranteed to work >on any PC? I wrote a driver for my z80 system for the IBM PC keyboard. very familiar with it, in z80 asm, never a problem.
From: Greegor on 5 Apr 2010 20:20
On Apr 5, 2:02 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: VV > Does your scope have hidden 100 MHz VV > option or some other secret bonus? VV > By industry standard, it should. THAT was funny! On Apr 5, 2:15 pm, n...(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: NC > Your keyboard example is excellent regarding NC > compatibility issues. Ever tried to make an NC > AT keyboard simulator that is guaranteed to NC > work on any PC? Is there actually a problem with doing that? Is there a lack of standards for those? What ARE the variations that cause problems? |