Why PIC? Because of pricing/value and the ranges of compatible chips therin. A recent AVR post might have me reconsider though ;-) BTW whats up with Mchip pricing? The savings seem to stop at QTY 100, even for the large distributors. I assume it is possible to talk directly with Mchip to get a better deal, but Is it possible to get significantly (1/2, 1/4) better prices for 1000s or 10000s? Thanks, Ben On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:56:39 -0400, Robert B. wrote: > > 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" > To: > 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 > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu