On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 08:07:32PM +0200, jumanji wrote: > Hello, > I cut a whole lot, I hope my reply still makes sense :) Ok. round 2. I cut the first part which I answered already. > These are details which I can't comment on, my idea is just that the > educational junk don't sit on the same PCB as the PIC. I think that educational is a misnomer here. From reading this message I'm getting the impression that the sole purpose of the onboard I/O is to teach concepts. It's not. The primary purposes are create a ready to use development environment and to standardize the base so that everyone that has one of these units can be assured of a base set of I/O devices when developing or supporting a project. Neither of these are primarily geared towards the educational aspect. I think that the CD, documentation, and tutorials that we plan to ship serve that purpose. > > > I can feel where you're coming from here. But taking this line is in > variance > > with what you were arguing above. I can really feel where you're coming > from > > in terms of novices users wanting to plug and play. But if you create a > modular > > system where the PICbase is going to require additional components in > order > > to be usable, you create a situation where it's more difficult to plug and > > play. > > NO, the PICbase has its own NECESSARY stuff onboard. You ppl ofcourse also > make a edu board for the newbies, on which the PICbase fits. After the > studies, you plug the PICbase into some other project. Its an already > working PICcircuitry & you only need to connect its IO's in your project. I think I finally have clarity on your dissent to I/O device integration, Your PICbase fits well with the modular environment that you are describing where you'll take the base and essentially permanently affix it to a project. So for the next project, you'll start with a new base. Got it. And if that's the tack then you are absolutely correct that the base should have as little integration as possible. Of course I'm tacking in a completely different direction... > > > I feel that you're on track with the idea but that the PICbase (hey! I > LIKE > > THAT NAME!) need to offer a stronger, wider base for everyone to operate > from. > > With putting alot of stuff on the same PCB as the PIC, you actually narrow > its flexibility imo. > With only the circuit to program, run & connect to a PIC on a PICbase, it > can be used by everybody, for many many DIFFERENT things, this is about the > widest flexibilty I can Imagine. Plus, you can work on different projects at > the same time, just buy more PICbases. Bingo! This is the crux of the difference between our paths. You're thinking in terms of multiple small units, one per project. My Designer concept only has a single reusable unit. It's used to develop the project, but it isn't integrated into the project at the end. Instead the final project is transferred off onto its own board and then the Designer is reused for the next project. They are in fact complementary approaches as the PICbase as you describe can be the tranfer board off the Designer. You populate it when the exact items you need. > > Let's take this discussion through a quick synth detour. Say you're just > > getting started and you have the opportunity to purchase one and only one > > component for starters. Do you purchase a sound module or a keyboard? > > [ Aside for the uninitiated: a sound module is a MIDI interface only > synth. > > So it requires being driven from some external MIDI source to produce > sound. ] > > I would say the keyboard because it gives instant gratification and serves > as > > a base to which you can further extend to other modules. > > It depends how you make the comparison, > I actually *know* ppl that bought a module as first, to hookit up to a > sequencer on PC. This could be a very logical step for someone who comes > from playing with > only 'tracker'software before, & hasn't got the faintest idea about playing > a keyboard. True. But it still illustrates the point that without some additional item for input, that the module cannot function in a completely standalone fashion. > This would not prevent him to make music with a soundmodule however. > He doesn't want to become a good player, he just wants to put together some > good music, but a keyboard isn't an absolute requirement then. WAP! SLAP! That's what I get for proffering a ill formed argument. > > Another motivation could be that the keyboard versions are more expensive. Absolutely. However if our musical friend didn't have a PC and still had to make the same choice, it wouldn't be such a cut and dried decision. > And, if later you still want a keyboard, you either could buy a cheap MIDI > controllerkeyboard or a more expensive master keyboard to add to it. Again I failed because of my poor formulation of my argument. If we have both components and they can only be used in a standalone, not modular, configuration, then there is a bit more contrast between the choices. > > > In a modular system I find that a programmer only, or a simple board with > > limited I/O to be like the sound module: a very useful component but > incomplete > > It IS complete, you don't have a modular system with only 1 thing, u need to > put a few things together. Exactly. The problem is that developing for and supporting a modular system is more difficult precisely because of the added complexity of modularity. If we have a system with 10 modular components and I develop a project with modules 1,4 and 5 and you have modules 1,8, and 9, then for you to use, test, or support my project, you'd have to purchase more modules. However if we both shared a resuable base (my Designer, not your PICbase) that incorporated the functionality of modules 1-6, then I could be assured that anyone that had a Designer could run my project out of the box. And I'm in full agreement with you that if every project physically incorporated the Designer, that it wouldn't work. But the Designer is the prototyping platform, not the final target, so the extra baggage of I/O devices it carries won't carry over to the final project. > True, there will be a need to build different PCB's for the PBK, but on the > other hand, alot more PICbases could be sold. Since this isn't primarily a for profit venture, volumn sales isn't necessarily a goal. However there is always the issue of mindshare. > > > * The project gets laid out on the Designer using a combination of the > onboard > > I/O, the breadboard, or if necessary due to insufficient breadboard > space > > an external target board connected to the designer. Note that at this > point > > even the external target board would only need the specific peripherals > that > > are not onboard the Designer. > > Your system would be re-useable if i'm not wrong., so you develop something > & when its all working & testing, you're gonna build a new circuit to run > your PIC & talk to your project. Your PBK then serves for another development. Bingo. I think we both understand each other. > > In my system, when some idea pops up, I buy a PICbase & I don't worry about > a pwr > supply or watever other gizmos it needs, nor do I waste time on soldering > the same thing everytime. I just build the thing inside my project, basta :) Right. But I think a cost analysis would need to be done as a comparison of purchasing PICbases on a per project basis as opposed to prototyping on a more expensive (initially) box then transferring the project to a real cheap board. The best example I can think of is the difference between using Basic Stamps and raw PICs. The BS gives a quick to develop platform, however there is a nearly $20 ongoing cost for each one. The PICs are cheaper but require more external infrastructure to utilize. I'm not sure who the winner would be in similar circumstances. > > > > Money? Or Resources? There's no extra money involved because a bootloader > can > > be dropped into an ordinary blank part. There is a resource cost because a > > bootloader does require program memory, I/O (minimum 1), and external > interface > > real estate (usually a MAX232 or it's discrete equivalent). > > I have seen bootloaded PICs for sale on WWW for close to 1,5x the price of a > blank PIC. > I'm guessing about numbers, but suppose a blank PIC =8$ & a loaded =13$ ? > After 10PICS you'd have spent the 50$ for a HW programmer. > This ofcourse in my idea of PBK (where you would buy more PICbase's) > If the PBK turns out to a 1 board thing with everything on it, the price > wouldn't matter. So at the end of the day (or the end of post) we are in total agreement. BTW if you need 10 bootloaded PICs, buy the 10 blanks and them program them with a $5 programmer like my TLVP. Saves you both time and money. > > > But as you see from the above design process that there's absolutely no > > requirement that the target be bootloaded. I was only hoping that the > > Designer's internal PIC would be bootloaded, there it's any requirement > that > > the projects that roll off the Designer developement line have bootloaders > in > > them. > > These are details beyond me :) You bootload into the Designer for development. You then use the Designer to program the final target. The final target doesn't need to have a bootloader on it unless you want to be able to field upgrade it. > > > > while a HW > > > programmer is a one time investment. (ppl may wanna build more then 1 of > > > their project, e.g. like a fancy LED things for give-away :) The onboard > > > features make the production of small & ultrasmall series a little bit > more > > > possible, coz components aren't exactly the cheapest things around. > > > > I find PIC prices absolutely unbelieveable! Nothing cost more than $10 USD > > in single quantities. One of the best values around. > > Oh but yes, PIC's are almost for free if u count what they can do, (I was > referring to that, I should have made it more clear perhaps) but I'm > talking about the other stuff that is expensive. PICs can do alot, & you > would need alot of other components if you would do it without a PIC., so my > point was, PICs make small series a bit more possible for the hobbiest. > (e.g. 3weeks ago in a local store, I had to pay 20(twenty!!) friggin Euro > for a silly plastic flatcable PCB connector) OUCH! > > > BTW again if you check my development process above, the Designer will > also > > be an ordinary PIC programmer though I'm proposing an ICSP interface only. > > Anyone who wants to do assembly line programmer would need to build an > > programmer board that would attach to the Designer's ICSP port. > > You are using unfamiliar terms for me here :) ICSP - In Circuit Serial Programm[ing,er]. Instead of transferring the chip to be programmed into the programmer, you connect a cable directly to the target and you program the chip in circuit. Usually this means that the programmer doesn't have to have a socket for the chip to be programmed to sit in. > > > > this don't mean one has got to learn everything. > > > That's not the perspective I'm trying to get accross. The interesting > thing > > about a smorgasbord (yes I looked up the spelling ;-) or Dim Sum isn't the > > fact that you have to eat everything that's there. It's the fact that > > everything that you may want to eat is there. So you can pick and choose > and > > experiment without having to get up and go different places. > > I don't know either of them, but still the question pops up, do I have to > pay for everything? also the stuff that I don't eat ? :) The answer is yes and yes. However it's only for common, resuable I/O. Remember I agree it doesn't work in a modular scheme where you'd pay each time you started a new project. Here my rough list again: Outputs ------- * LCD: staple display output * multi-digit 7 segment LED: excellent for not always lighted environments * individual LEDs: often used as status indicators * RS232 serial: standard computer to computer communications interface Input ----- * Buttons: Often used to change device state * RS232 serial: standard computer to computer communications interface * IR decoder: my one reach for the base board I think. But it's so sexy as a remote control and data input interface because any standard universal remote can be used to control and give input into the interface. Analog ------ * Potentiometer (or maybe an encoder): transmits finer scale analog info. Think of a knob type interface. * PWM: The PIC already has it onboard. A simple opamp voltage follower provides some power. Has many uses including sound generation and brightness control for LEDs. Nothing carries a significant cost other than the LCD and the IR (and the encoder if we go that direction). I believe that each and every one of these items can be and will by used in projects especially if they are a part of the base resuable system. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.