On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 11:35:01PM +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote: > The ICD2 interface is one of the most important thing > to foster support for dsPIC and higher end 18F (like 18FUSB). In your opinion. Linux folks are probably not going to be inclined to plunk down that type of money for an ICD2 unless there's a big benefit coming back for it. > Both the programmer interface and debug interface are > important. AVR has a very good following in the hobbyists > community because of the cross-platform support of programmers > and debuggers. As much as I do not like to use AVR in my > work, I do envy that they have so good support for hobbyists > and open source community. I can guess as to why you don't use the AVR. No guarantee of getting chips in any reasonable timeframe right? MChip certainly has it right for the hobby market. And with their sample program, it's really on the ball. > Microchip is doing much better > in the business front than Atmel. They can do better in > the hobbyist front as well and I think they are willing to > do it as well because they listen to all kinds of customers > including students who will be the future business customers. > For example, Microchip Singapore allows some universities and > polytechnic institutes to build their own ICD/ICD2/Pickit and > provide training for them. Well that's cool. This isn't an ICD issue AFAICT now. The real issue is the fact that the only interface for ICD2 is embedded in MPLAB. But really right now to many of us on the outside looking in it looks analogous to driving a Ferrari: You simply cannot truly understand until you've done it. Also I think that you overestimate the willingness of folks to invest that much cash for hobby stuff. That's the sole reason that low end Tait/JDM style programmers and their associated software continue to proliferate. You and I have gone back and forth over a $50 USD PicKit 2. A $160 ICD2 is light years away from that in cost. I'm trying to get you to understand that for someone walking into this development environment, that kind of money is a barrier to entry. I believe it was you that stated something along the lines that you have a $60 allowance with the wife for tech tools. We've all been there. But like the Ferrari, if you have not yet experienced the benefits of having PIC available an investment on a tool like ICD2 is really out there. Typically upon entry to a hobby (and BTW I'm strictly on the hobby perspective, pros need not bother with this) it's important to get early success at a very reasonable price. Lack of success or large investment will drive potential entrants away. Now once they are in and having some success, then you can attempt to convince them that better (and more expensive) tools would be of benefit to them. But frankly at this point you haven't convinced me, and I actually understand the benefits of ICD. > The developer of LPLAB has to use reverse-engineering method > to get some information of ICD2 programmer interface. If the > API/protocol is known, maybe he already come out a working > versions. It is for both Linux and Windows. I'm not arguing that point. Primarily I see a "We need this thing." without supporting evidence of why it's needed. This is just moot court anyway. Just sparring practice. At the end of the day few hobbyists really need anything that dsPICs have to offer anyway. 2 hardware USARTS in a 28 pin package are probably the more interesting item. USB is probably the only substative item that the 18F family brings to the table. We still struggle trying to get new users to understand why they shouldn't start with 16F84s. > > Microchip is allowing third-party compilers to be plugged into > MPALB. Actually there is a plugin for gputils as well. However > it is a beta. To allow for third-party plugin for programmers > will not be a problem for Microchip does not distribute > the plugins. The users are installing the plugins from third > parties like HiTech (PICC). So third-party developers should > take care of their plugins. However Microchip should open > the APIs. Wouter pointed that out. So what exactly is MChips response to requests for interface information for the ICD2? > > MPLAB is one of the driving force for Microchip's success. From > MPLAB 4 to MPLAB 5 to MPLAB 6/7 and you see Microchip jumps to No 1 > position in 8-bit MCU market and their market capital now is > about 6.46 Billion, 7 times of Atmel which has a much higher revenue > than Microchip. And it points to why the relevance is so little to the Linux community. Any serious Linux PIC developer hasn't used MPLAB since it was a 16 bit DOS application. It's just not on our radar. Completely unimportant. So its interfaces are of little direct use. We'd end up having to re-engineer applications (like LPLAB) for it anyway. I leave this part of the discussion with a situation: "I'm a novice user that wants to build a circuit that keeps my lamp on for one minute after I ask it to turn off. Folks like Xiaofan are recommending that I purchase a $50 PicKit 2 or a $160 ICD2 (or a cheaper clone) to do my development. But I see all of these inexpensive PIC programmers out there. Why should I choose to invest so much for just one simple project?" BAJ > > Regards, > Xiaofan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Byron A Jeff" > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.hardware.microcontrollers.pic > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:00 PM > Subject: Re: [PIC] dsPIC for hobbyists > > >> interfaces! > >> - MLAB <-> ICD2 interface (RS232/USB) > >> - MLAB <-> third party programmer software > > > > Ah! I see. Both of those are Windows specific AFAICT. So they > > are outside of my scope. > > > > Would the MPLAB to ICD2 interface help in developing ICD2 > > host software for Linux? > > > >... > > Of course. I'd be interested to see if MChip thought there was any > > benefit in having an MPLAB benefit to 3rd party programmers. As I've > > stated earlier, I'd be leery of that if I were them. Because as soon > > as some 3rd party programmer doesn't work with MPLAB, customers will > > be ringing up or E-mailing MCHIP to ask why it doesn't work. If I were > > Mchip, that certainly wouldn't be a beneficial thing, considering that > > MPLAB isn't a direct profit center for them. > > > > BAJ > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist