Welcome, Peter. You have come to the right place. We mostly program Pics here; many of us are professional firmware or product developers. My lot in life seems to be designing Law Enforcement products, i.e. video surveillance systems, etc. Its somewhat sleazy, but somebody has to do it. Some of us also program SX parts; they are faster than PICs and have some advantages, but they have certain disadvantages, too. The only suggestions I have are to try to buy a programmer that most folks here know, so when you need help, all you gotta do is ask the List, and SOMEBODY has solved that problem at some time or another. Most of us solve problems slightly differently, but it won't matter. For an inexpensive programmer, I'd suggest Wouter's programmer kit; another programmer I like is the K128, K182, K149 and K150, variants on a design by Tony Nixon. For development, Microchip's ICD2 is excellent at about $150 USD, but I like an RS232 clone made by www.mcu.cz; I own 3 of them and they cost only about $55 USD. This can also be used to program all of the Flash PICs. --Bob Peter Johansson wrote: >Greetings all! I was an electronics hobbyist back in the late '70s >and early '80s but have been pretty much a software guy since then. A >few weeks back I stumbled onto the SX and was shocked that nowadays a >50 MIPS microcontroller can be had for five bucks. I immediately went >out and popped for the SX-tech tool kit. It should be arriving any >day now. > >In the meantime, I've been researching other microcontrollers, mostly >the Microchip PIC. I must say it has been quite an effort trying to >figure out the product line, which chips are history, what to use >where and so forth, but I'm beginning to see the method to the >madness. > >I've found an incredible amount of information about the PICs on the >web, perhaps almost too much. The number of different PIC programmers >alone is astounding. And this is where I have my newbie question. >I'm sure this is a FAQ, and if someone can point me to a single >reference I'd be happy to go off and start reading. (Also, are >archives of this list prior to the recent switch to majordomo >available, and if so, where?) >So, here's what I know (or think I know) and what I don't... > >It seems as if the only features the fancy (i.e. expensive) >programmers have are the ability to program everything in a single >socket and then test the programming at multiple voltage levels, but >it also seems as if these features aren't really necessary for the >hobbyist. It also seems as if they can program the older non-serial >units, but I doubt I'd be dealing with any older chips at this point. >The speed at which the chips are programmed seems to be more a >function of the software than the programmer itself. Is there more >that I'm missing here? > >It doesn't really seem as if the very simple programmers based on >AN589 or COM84 really do anything different that the fancy-pants >programmers, so long as you get the programming signals on the proper >pins. The one difference I do see is that signal timing is handled by >the PC, which on a slow machine (or perhaps even a not so slow >machine) is non-deterministic in a multi-tasking environment. > >It seems as if the electrical characteristics of the AN589 circuit are >standard for all recent PICs, and it is the software dataflow that >really determines what chips can be programmed. > >Then there is the issue of in-circuit programming. It seems as if >in-circuit programming uses the same programming functions and signals >as the "standard" programming, and doing in-circuit programming is >more a matter of designing the embedded circuit with proper isolation >to accept in-circuit programming. > >Now, because I'm new to this, I'm going to be doing a lot of >re-programming on a breadboard. (I even found my old breadboard and >stash of old components!) It seems silly to constantly be moving the >PIC back and forth between the breadboard and a programmer -- at the >very least that would involve the purchase of two ZIF sockets. It >would seem to make much more sense to wire the five programming pins >from the breadboard to a socket which can then be plugged into either >the programmer or a loopback to the breadboard. In reality, since I >have just one rather large board, the programmer would likely live on >the same breadboard to start out, epsecially if it was a simple one. >The advantage of this "jumper" approach seems as if would simply >eliminate the need for all of the isolation circuitry. > >This *seems* as if it would be a very simple and elegant solution to >development and prototyping, yet I have found only a few references to >this method. (Wisp and TLVP) Furthermore, it seems as if this method >will easily allow the use of the LVP, eliminating the need for the 13v >supply & associated circuitry. Are there issues involved that I am >missing? Are there cases where this doesn't work? > >Right now, I'm leaning towards using Byron Jeff's design for the >Trivial Parallel Port programmers (both the low voltage and high >voltage varieties) due to the low component count. If this turns out >to be a good solution, I'll probably use pp06 for programming because >of it's wide device support. (That does mean I'll be writing my own >parallel port driver, but given the modular nature of the program this >seems trivial.) Again, this assumes the electrical characteristics >for the different devices is the same, and it's the format of the data >stream to the device that determines what devices can be programmed. > >I do have a specific project in mind which will require a fairly large >number of simple PICs, and it looks like the 12F629/16F630 will fit >that bill at $1.60/$1.80ea. (This is the specific reason for my >interest in PIC instead of SX!) Although these devices are not billed >as LVP devices, it seems as if they do not need the 13V of the more >typical HVP devices. They seem to be HVP flash memory, but include an >internal high voltage generator. It seems as if anything from 8.5V to >13.5V will do the trick. If I'm understanding this correctly, it >eliminates the need for that pesky 13V source! > >Many thanks in advance for any comments, advice and suggestions in >these areas. Confirmation of where I'm right would be appreciated as >well as note of where I'm in error! > >-p. >_______________________________________________ >http://www.piclist.com >View/change your membership options at >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > > -- Note: Attachments must be sent to attach@engineer.cotse.net, and MAY delay replies to this message. 520-219-2363 _______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist