On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:49:47 -0400, you wrote:

>> Don't get me wrong, I like Microchip, and I like the way that
>> they provide their development software for free.  But there are
>> just a few things about MPLAB that really get to me.  I can
>> ignore the small bugs, lackluster interface, and the fact
>> Microsoft is developing 64 bit windows and MPLAB is still 16 bit.
>> Such things are immaterial.  (Hopefully v. 6.0 will be a big
>> improvement.)  What I can't ignore is the poor performance of the
>> simulator.  It seems to be intentionally lethargic!  Why must
>> programs like SPEED.EXE be used as an accelerant?  Is MPLAB
>> sandbagged?  It consumes about 1% of the CPU's resources and
>> idles the rest.  I though that Microchip might not expend much
>> effort on MPLAB in the hopes that 3rd party developers would pick
>> up the slack, but where are they?
>>
>> What do you think about this?
>
>        Simple, they probably don't want you using the simulator that =
much, they
>want you buying their emulators (which are much more accurate in some
>circumstances). TTYL
I'd put it slightly differently...=20
The people doing serious development for real products which sell PIC
chips will mostly be using in-circuit emulators, as their time is too
valuable not to do so.=20
Add this to the fact that most PIC projects interact with the outside
world in ways that are difficult or impossible to emulate under
simulation.=20
The bottom line is that the people who buy the vast majority of PICs
will not be using the simulator to any serious degree, so it does not
justify much in the way of development budget.=20
=20

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu