On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 03:07:19PM +0600, James Paul wrote: > All, > > My 2cents worth... > > You all do realize that you can use almost any program written for one > PIC micro on another with few to no changes whatsoever except for > specifying the correct part to put it into, right? There are exceptions, > but they are few and far between. So, in my opinion, it really matter > very little which one you start with. They are all so similar and code > compatible, that there isn't much of a distinction from a programming > perspective. From a programming perspective. Thanks for making that point. A lot of folks in this conversation seem to think that somehow the newer chips are so vastly different from the 16F84 that you have to have entirely new material in order to use it. Everything that's new is designed to save you time and effort. The new hardware simplifies the programming task, not complicate it. BAJ > > Regards, > > Jim > > > > I have to agree with Shawn. > > I switched from Motorola to Microchip about 3 years ago. When I > > switched, I knew > > that the 877 chip was probably the chip that I really needed, but I > > started with 84 > > chip because of the huge amount of online programs and circuits > > available for 84, > > and also because I found a good many books about the 84. > > > > This made/makes the 84 an excellent introductory chip. > > > > If there was as much easy, introductory information available on the > > 628 as the 84 then it would be a great place to start. > > > > At 01:28 PM 3/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >>I advocate the 16F84 (and of course the 16F628 is great too) not > >>because it is easy, but because it is hard. You won't be able to 'UART' > >>yourself out of every bind -- unfortunately, every now and then you > >>will have to 'bit-bang' your way out. And in terms of A/D, I feel that > >>it's best to understand the underlying process or first-principles of a > >>problem. What is the harm is constructing your first A/D conversion on > >>your own, without Microchip's help. Along the same lines, I would never > >>suggest that you build an opamp from transistors, resistors, etc -- > >>unless you were a beginner -- then if I were in charge, I would insist > >>it (at least the input stage ;). Furthermore, if you think that the > >>only thing that can be done with the '84 is the 'Blinky LED thing', > >>then I'm at a loss to respond. > >> > >>If you can recommend a great beginner book that supports the 16F628, > >>(like Pic 'n Up the Pace supports the 16F84) then that would be the > >>better choice, for sure. The small differences between the 16F628 and > >>16F84 may be small to us, yet monumental to an absolute beginner. And > >>lastly, I think that someone recommended > >>the datasheet, but isn't that a little like teaching long-division with > >>a calculas text? It can sometimes be easy to forget what it was like to > >>learn material for the first time. The obvious isn't always obvious. > >> > >>I say, use the 16F84 (or 16F628) and if you like the hobby, use the > >>'877. But don't stop there, use the TI MSP430 series too and while > >>you're at it, get real 'inertial' and do something with an EPROM or a > >>flip-flop. Shawn > >> > >> > > > I truly think it's a disservice to advocate beginners starting > >> > > > in a > >> > > smaller > >> > > > box simply due to inertia. Simply put a beginner will have to > >> > > > learn > >>more > >> > > on a > >> > > > 16F84 to get over the initial hump. Hardware generally > >> > > > simplifies > >>code. > >> > > Less > >> > > > hardware requires more complex code. Hardware can asyncronously > >> > > > handle tasks without constant code intervention. Software often > >> > > > requires > >>syncrony > >> > > > and polling to keep track. Then it gets complicated by the fact > >> > > > that > >>the > >> > > 16F84 > >> > > > only has one timer, one puny 8 bit timer. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > I agree. In fact I recommend beginners start with the 16F876 > >> > > because it > >>is > >> > > a full featured part in the smallest package such parts come in. > >> > > After getting done with the Blinky LED project, most people will > >> > > sooner or > >>later > >> > > want an A/D, which the 16F628 doesn't have. The extra few bucks > >> > > for the '876 is small even for amateurs compare to the cost of > >> > > everything else, > >>and > >> > > is offset by the fact that they are less likely to need different > >> > > chips > >>in > >> > > the future. > >> > > >> > That is certainly a valid argument. In fact I use 16F877 for pretty > >> > much > >>that > >> > reason, plus getting the extra I/O pins to boot. > >> > > >> > But cost is one of the reasons I push the 16F628. The other is the > >> > form > >>factor > >> > just in case a beginner is using something prefabricated that's > >> > slotted > >>for > >> > a 16F84. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > I think of it this way: Start with and learn PICs using the > >> > > 16F876. If > >>you > >> > > have a project where space is really tight, use the 16F628. If > >> > > you need more I/O pins or more A/D channels, use the 16F877. > >> > > >> > No argument from me. > >> > > >> > BAJ > >> > > >> > -- > >> > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > >> > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>-- > >>http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > >>ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Cris Wilson > > Information Resource Consultant > > College of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities > > Clemson University > > cris@clemson.edu > > To report problems email: aah_computers@clemson.edu > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.