James Newton wrote:
>
> How is this different from "the Engine"? Replace the EEPROM in the expansion
> slot with the host system. i.e. send the commands down from the host rather
> than reading them from the EEPROM. Less cost, more flexibility.
> see:
> http://www.picnpoke.com/engine.html
>
> It seems to me that we should take what has already been done and build on
> it rather than re-inventing the wheel. Unless I am missing some major
> difference?
>

Creating an interface that can adjust to user demands for all these
devices is by no means an easy task. The Engine goes part way there, but
it could do with some refinement.

The PC interface is a bit rigid in it's present form, in regards to hex
file acceptance, but I have some ideas to make it more flexible.

On the hardware side, I'm sure if it was 'powered' by one of the newer
16Fxxx chips it would perform much more efficiently, and provide easier
firmware updates as well. The only problem here is how to create a
generic hardware interface which will suit a large chip range.

Some sort of power, VCC and data matrix making all three available to
each programmer socket pin would be ideal. The Engine zip file has some
basic PCB ideas, but not to this degree.

My biggest problem is time and my limited knowledge of the huge variety
of devices. There are huge differences in programming algorithms around.
Just compare Scenix, 16cXXX and 18cXXX to name but a few.

The best thing about it, is that you can easily change programming
algorithms if the need arises, all for free.

As I mentioned earlier, time is getting so limited these days, I'm
starting to forget what sleep is about, so if 'open source' for this
project will help it on it's way then so be it. (Bear in mind, I only
did this for some programming experience in tokenizer software, so the
code is a bit sloppy.

I can set up my web page to host things if need be.

--
Best regards

Tony

http://www.picnpoke.com
mailto:sales@picnpoke.com