I got into it because I saw (and immediately wanted to play with) a basic
stamp, but they were $$$$$$!  I couldn't believe that every remote control
or washing machine had a $60 chip in it, so I looked into the field of
programmable chips and found PICS to be the simplest ones, with tons of
literature based around the old 16f88 that were easy to understand for a
digital-illiterate.  Even an expensive PIC is only a fraction of the cost of
a basic stamp, and they run faster with more peripheral features.  Lately
I've been migrating to the AVRs though..

----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Adam Davis" <adampic@UBASICS.COM>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Why PIC?


> As others have said, they were first to be cheaply available with cheap
> tools to the average hobbyist, and were promoted as a step up from the
> basic stamp by Parallax.
>
> So with about $50 invested in 1995 one could have a few 16c84 chips
> which did not require a UV lamp to erase, could be erased and
> reprogrammed in seconds, and were /easy/ to use and /hard/ to break.
> The assembler, simulator, programming software were free.  The
> programmer was cheap.  You could prototype in the '84 and if careful
> port it to a '54 if you needed cheaper chips.
>
> With so few simple instructions, one accumulator (W), and high current
> pins you couldn't help but learn assembly in one afternoon for simple
> projects.
>
> It was simply a configurable TTL type chip for me (at first) and became
> much more later.  Instead of making large ttl circuits for light
> sequencers I could use one chip.  Later it was simple to make a digital
> light dimmer.
>
> -Adam
>
> rrc124+@PITT.EDU wrote:
>
> >I have a really stupid question to ask, but it's been bothering me for a
while so I'll just ago ahead and ask it:
> >
> >Why is the PIC uC so popular?
> >
> >When I look at the specs of the competition, I see nothing but seemingly
better products. Now I don't want everyone to get mad.. please. I'm simply a
lowly computer science student who is still very new to this little hobby..
and I've only ever used PICs, so I really can't compare fairly. But the
things I see are: AVRs and SXs are much faster w/MIPS, offer things such as
lots of SRAM, etc.
> >
> >Are PICs cheaper? Is it because there are just so damn many to chose
from? Is it because they are simpler to understand, so many engineers
learned on them and still hold them dear? Is it because they have such a
huge base of code/developers already and the momentum keeps them going? I
guess the main thing I see is that these other uC's have such an awesome
MIPS advantage... so why not use them? Are they more expensive?
> >
> >I don't know why I'm asking this because the answer is probably a
combination of all of the above. But I keep wondering if there is one huge
advantage that I'm not seeing. Anyway, just a thought.
> >
> >--
> >http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> >mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu

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