AVR-Chat

I think one of the main things about the AVR is that it's architecture lends it's self more to high level language constructs, such as pointers, making machine code compiled from C much more efficient.
 
Gavin

--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org> wrote:

From: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: HOLY SHIT BATMAN!
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:56 PM






On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Leon wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "harmon,jr sicat" <hcsicat@yahoo. com>
> To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroup s.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: HOLY SHIT BATMAN!
>
>
>> Just curious, Leon i've been reading your messages and something keeps
>> popping up my mind.
>> Are you working for Microchip?
>
> No, but I don't like to see them being slagged off. They make perfectly good
> products. I actually use PICs more these days than AVRs, because they are
> easier to get hold of and Microchip's support is much better than Atmel's,
> and their tools are better.
>
> The wider range of devices means that a closer fit to a particular
> application is generally possible, than with the AVR, in terms of number of
> pins and features, reducing cost.
>
> Leon
>
>

I have nothing against PIC's either. To my knowledge, Atmel does not make 
anything comparable to the PIC 10F200. A 6-pin SMD microcontroller will 
fit in some timy places. I made a Morse code keyer on a 1/2 inch square 
board (could've even made it smaller!) which can be tacked inside ham 
radio equipment with double-stick tape or what have you.

I do like the AVR architecture better than the Microchip 
architecture.

Zack
 














      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]