AVR-Chat

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:41:08PM +0200, Roland Jollivet wrote:
> I prefer the idea of using the Pic because I was around at the time of
> it's release, and really applaud the idea on focusing on selling
> chips, rather than trying the stiff the customer with high priced
> tools.

No one makes a profit off development tools. The fallacy in Motorola's
marketing was the notion that they could prosper serving only those who
could move at least 100,000 MCU's per year. Microchip's success is
largely due to recognition that most success stories start small. If
Microchip can get in the door from the start then when a product takes
off one is too busy turning the crank to make more to have time to
redesign to take $0.25 off the cost.

When I have hit the books shopping for parts I have found AVR FLASH
MCU's to be less expensive than Microchip.

> So I think there is quite a bit of loyalty/allegiance to Microchip
> stuff. If only they got rid of that stupid paging system, entirely!

In Microchip assembly that "stupid paging system" makes a perverse kind
of logic. Ever program an HP-41 or TI-58/59? I know of nothing that can
beat hand coded Microchip assembly for code density. OTOH "whats the
point? Code space is cheap." Having said that, its not all that cheap in
a PIC, and Microchip C compilers generate huge code when dealing with
the 16-series architecture. Am told the 18 is much more C-friendly but
haven't had a need to look. Every time I quickly glance at PIC I find
the AVR chips cost less for similar function. Never mind the development
tools, I already have a Microchip 2000-something emulator.

-- 
David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.