Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: jasen on 24 Mar 2007 05:07 On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > jasen wrote: >> On 2007-03-17, bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com <bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> the AVR series hasen't increased in performance in years (speed, a/d >>> resolution, DMA, fifo buffers, divide instructions etc). >> >> Many of them are doing 20 MIPS now, that wasn't available two years >> ago, built-in full speed USB is new too, > > 20 MIPS, on a MEGA. Those aren't backwards compatible with the tradition > AVRs are they? 20 on a ATTiny2313 last year, megas to0 this year, up from 16. I've only compared the ATTiny2313 and the AT90S2313 Those two certainly appear to be binary compatible in that the newer Tiny will run the older 90S programs and perform the same. >> It's an 8-bit microcontroller it doesn't need that extra stuff ... > > Speak for yourself. Since when is A/D resolution not important for an 8 > bitter? how often is 10 bits too few ? Bye. Jasen
From: Lostgallifreyan on 24 Mar 2007 10:39 Lionel <usenet(a)imagenoir.com> wrote in news:0g8a039nv97085vme4997faf4nhuko1uf0(a)4ax.com: >>>> It's an 8-bit microcontroller it doesn't need that extra stuff ... >>> >>> Speak for yourself. Since when is A/D resolution not important for >>> an 8 bitter? >> >>how often is 10 bits too few ? > > Quite often. Photography & audio work, just for two popular examples. > Agreed. SOme tasks like laser scanning might call for a small dedicated controller, and you'd certainly want 16 bits there, especially if colour mixing was needed. Even a small task like lin/log conversion, which many on Usenet advise me was best solved by code, needs to use 16 bits for accuracy over a decent range. Unless more tiny micros are made with 16 bit ADC and DAC on board, people will always be agonising over expensive analog computation IC's. Far better that we have a small number of cheap standard parts we can learn to code for. If I knew I could have this, I'd put more effort into learning it. I don't want to do it with a 40 pin device that needs a diploma to learn either, I want to do it with a 4 pin IC and some very simple high level language. The way things are now, even real experts have argued and floundered over what best to advise. If more small micros had 16 bit analog I/O built in, people like me wouldn't even have to ask.
From: Sjouke Burry on 24 Mar 2007 18:00 jasen wrote: > On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> jasen wrote: >>> On 2007-03-16, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> TT_Man wrote: >>>>>> As you said, PIC is king and it is for a reason, they work. >>>>>> >>>>> Only if you can get to grips with the appalling op code set..... OK >>>>> if you can program in C , I suppose.I can't/won't >>>> I only do assembler on the PIC too. What's wrong with the op-code >>>> set? It's RISC, >>> no it's not, it has too few registers to qualify. >> By whose definition? > > Pretty much everyones (with the exception of the PIC fans). > > google "what is risc" sometime. > > > What do you not understand about "Reduced Instruction Set Computer"? (A computer with a reduced instruction set???) A computer with about 30 instructions can be called a risc computer,as compared to the x86 group with about 500. Now if you want to claim that name for something else, you better explain that, because I think a lot of people dont agree with you.
From: krw on 24 Mar 2007 19:32 In article <46059f7e$0$3748$ba620dc5(a)text.nova.planet.nl>, burrynulnulfour(a)ppllaanneett.nnlll says... > jasen wrote: > > On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> jasen wrote: > >>> On 2007-03-16, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>> TT_Man wrote: > >>>>>> As you said, PIC is king and it is for a reason, they work. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Only if you can get to grips with the appalling op code set..... OK > >>>>> if you can program in C , I suppose.I can't/won't > >>>> I only do assembler on the PIC too. What's wrong with the op-code > >>>> set? It's RISC, > >>> no it's not, it has too few registers to qualify. > >> By whose definition? > > > > Pretty much everyones (with the exception of the PIC fans). > > > > google "what is risc" sometime. > > > > > > > What do you not understand about > "Reduced Instruction Set Computer"? The term is "Reduce Instruction Set Complexity". > (A computer with a reduced instruction set???) No, it's a computer with a set of less complex instructions. The set can still be quite large and complex (e.g. PowerPC). > A computer with about 30 instructions can be called > a risc computer,as compared to the x86 group with about 500. Not necessarily. If it has memory reference arithmetic instructions (e.g. ADD R,<memory>) it is NOT a RISC processor. > Now if you want to claim that name for something else, > you better explain that, because I think a lot of people > dont agree with you. Anyone with a passing familiarity with computer architecture will. -- Keith
From: krw on 25 Mar 2007 10:42
In article <9fac0393nnc4fvfdn4adjaqn1vbni30aa9(a)4ax.com>, usenet(a)imagenoir.com says... > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:32:44 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >In article <46059f7e$0$3748$ba620dc5(a)text.nova.planet.nl>, > >burrynulnulfour(a)ppllaanneett.nnlll says... > >> jasen wrote: > >> > On 2007-03-23, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> jasen wrote: > >> >>> On 2007-03-16, Anthony Fremont <spam-not(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >>>> TT_Man wrote: > >> >>>>>> As you said, PIC is king and it is for a reason, they work. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> Only if you can get to grips with the appalling op code set..... OK > >> >>>>> if you can program in C , I suppose.I can't/won't > >> >>>> I only do assembler on the PIC too. What's wrong with the op-code > >> >>>> set? It's RISC, > >> >>> no it's not, it has too few registers to qualify. > >> >> By whose definition? > >> > > >> > Pretty much everyones (with the exception of the PIC fans). > >> > > >> > google "what is risc" sometime. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> What do you not understand about > >> "Reduced Instruction Set Computer"? > > > >The term is "Reduce Instruction Set Complexity". > > No, it isn't: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC> > > > >> (A computer with a reduced instruction set???) > > > >No, it's a computer with a set of less complex instructions. The set > >can still be quite large and complex (e.g. PowerPC). > > > >> A computer with about 30 instructions can be called > >> a risc computer,as compared to the x86 group with about 500. > > > >Not necessarily. If it has memory reference arithmetic instructions > >(e.g. ADD R,<memory>) it is NOT a RISC processor. > > > >> Now if you want to claim that name for something else, > >> you better explain that, because I think a lot of people > >> dont agree with you. > > > >Anyone with a passing familiarity with computer architecture will. > > I have more than a "passing familiarity" with computer architecture > (nearly 30 years, so far), & I don't agree with you. > Funny, the people who invented the term (and the first example hardware) do. I tend to defer to them. -- Keith |