You have a valid point. Yes, I guess we are paying for the development software everytime we buy a PIC. And, yes, we have a right to expect the best possible software for the price, whether it be an outright lump sum or distributed over the course of many PIC's or many years, or whatever. But, I think that the product offered by MChip right now fills my needs. Whether or not it is the best they can offer, I don't know. Probably not. But MChip has not only allowed, but endorsed third party software development as well as hardware development. And I'm guessing at least one of the factors behind such a decision is to relieve them of the burden of writing development software in the first place. So, what they offer is a product that allows you to utilize their parts and do development work at a mininum cost. If you want to get really serious about software development, you can go to the third parties to get better development tools. Of course, that means higher cost because you now have assemblers and compilers written by a company that depends on the income from these packages to support them. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that from my point of view, for the price of the MChip development software, it's hard to beat. If you want to spend some money, you can get better tools. And generally, the more you spend, the better the tools. But, if you want to get started, or you only have one or a few designs to do, and you don't want to or can't spend a lot of money for commercial quality tools, then the MChip package is the way to go. And me personally, if I had my druthers, I'd run DOS based apps for my PIC development work. They take up so little space compared to windows based apps, that even a small hard drive can last a long time and hold hundreds of files. But that's another story. OK, I'm done now. Regards, Jim >You're right, the package works fine, but also do my car (and >believe me, you won't buy it in a million years!). > Isn't it Microchip *supposed* to be doing this software effort to >maintain customers and be competitive. After all I can also download >similar well-programmed packages from the competition (not willing to >favor other companies here, I'm a PIC fan after all!) at then same >*price*. My point here is that the minimun requirement I would ask >from a multimillion chip company is to provide their customers with >the best development software possible at minimun or no cost. The way >I see it, we're paying for this service every time we buy a pic. > >My personal opinion only >(I can understand if you disagree.) > >> All, >> >> Apparently I wouldn't know clunky if it bit me in the behind. I think MPLAB >> looks and >> works fine. I've used the DOS version(s) and the latest WINDOWS version(s), >> and I >> think they're great. Espcecially when you consider their low cost. :-) >> Now, to be fair, >> I'm not a S/W engineer, and I don't claim to be. But I do know that in all >> the applications >> that I've used a PIC, I have written the code for all of them using either >> the MPASM and >> MPSIM for DOS, or MPLAB for windows, and they all have performed generally >> like I >> expected. By this I mean I had the logic right. I had to go back and tweak >> some values >> for delays and such, but the debugging time was a mininum. I believe I owe >> this to the >> software support of MICROCHIP in the form of MPASM, MPSIM and MPLAB. Now, >> if >> anyone can come up with a better assembler/simulator for the same price, >> please let me >> know and I would be more than happy to try it out. What I am saying I guess >> is that I see >> nothing wrong with the MPLAB package. It works basically as advertised, >> it's cost is >> second to none, and it can be used by someone without much prior knowledge >> of this >> product. Those three things to me are a definite selling point. As far as >> bad points, I >> can't recall any at this point in time, but I'm sure there are some. Also, >> I guess 'CLUNKY' >> depends on your definition of CLUNKY. Bottom line for me is it's a great >> product, and I >> have used it in the past woth minimal problems and plan to use it in the >> future, unless of >> course someone can come up with something that is better for at or near the >> same price. >> Unless someone wants to do this strictly for the joy of doing it, I don't >> think it can be done. >> Therefore, I'm sold on MPLAB. No flames intended here. Just stating my >> opinion of >> MPLAB. >> >> >> Thanks and Regards all, >> >> >> Jim >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matt Bonner >> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >> Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 8:57 AM >> Subject: Re: Newbie intro >> >> >> >Steve Thackery wrote: >> >> >> >> > I think I read here on the list >> >> > recently the MChip is working a full 32bit version of MPLAB at the >> moment. >> >> > Can't wait to see it .. it's obvious the current code was developed >> with >> >> > Borland C 3 or 4. >> >> >> >> Hooray! Without seeming rude to Microchip, I have to say that MPLAB >> looks >> >> distinctly clunky and old fashioned. It's clearly written by electronics >> >> guys who've learned to program, rather than dyed-in-the-wool software >> >> engineers. >> > >> >Unfortunately, when MChip brings out their 32 bit version of MPLAB, >> >that's when they'll no longer support any of their 16 bit versions (DOS >> >command line and Win3.11). The up side is that maybe it'll work on NT. >> > >> >--Matt >> >> >------------------------------------ >netQ >http://virtuaweb.com/picprog >"Home of amateur PIC programmers..." > >-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >mQCNAzV38BkAAAEEALfWv9j3f+tZ+z2IW+2o9Ebx4bUGnHjHPqIe0a6yVKawaeV/ >Y4I6L2/A0ddbVMG8+qJ0MvHNkr3DzYkpW+hTl9zAzXkKBdZ3GA5bbvot7entl/O2 >YDtRWUV730koxBo5iFFUbJH5kbmkox+h3znj34zPnZNWzNaqOAwol3wABfBNAAUT >tBxOZXRRIDxuZXRxdWFrZUBpbm5vY2VudC5jb20+ >=0bVU >-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >