AVR-Chat

Basically, the only reason to use a PIC is because "we've always done it that way".  I've heard that the PIC was actually designed by another company in the late '70s; they thought it was dead; sold it to Microchip who launched a marketing blitz for it.  Back when our only other options were the M6800,  8080 etc, it was an attractive processor for small projects.  However, it's been left in the dust by Atmel and TI.

Tim Gilbert
JEM Innovation Inc.
303-926-9053 (office)
303-437-4342 (cell)
720-890-8582 (fax)
www.jeminnovation.com
www.pdksolutions.com


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: brewski922 
  To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:07 PM
  Subject: [AVR-Chat] Re: PIC's s*ck!!


    I being an electronics tech and in my spare time an electronics hobbiest, I got into microprocessors by accident about 10 years ago.

  The first ones I met were the PICs. I started DLing info and reading up on them. This is probably because they are the biggest, having the bigger market share. At least I think they do.

  Fortunately I came across the AVRs. Being a hobbyest money that supports my habit come from disposable income. Getting started with an AVR starter kit like the STK-500 is less expensive. AVR's supporting software from Atmel, AVRStudio, is free.

  Where PIC has the advantage is the bigger population and was out there first. PIC has more third party support, their are code snippets too. AVRs are usually less expensive, and the processing power of the chips generally stronger. At least that is the way I see it.

  Obviously many people feel the PIC has more bang-for-the-buck. (In the US buck is slang for dollar.) The way I see it those are the folk that don't have their brain in gear.

  Mike



  

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