AVR-Chat

Bah humbug.  Another religious war.  I love the AVR, but I hate Atmel. 
Their tools are weak, they replace parts (with parts that aren't pin 
compatable) at whim and sometimes are difficult to even get in the US. 
However, they are the only choice of cheap micros for Mac or Linux 
developers, so, I endure.  On the other hand, I hate the PIC 
architecture but in general love the support that I get from Microchip. 
  So, as usual, pick your poison.

DLC

Roy E. Burrage wrote:
> Minimum 4 times a day scrub with lye soap and a scrub brush or a 
> scouring pad, rinse with clorox water.  Do this for a week after each 
> PIC project and you should be okay.  A saturated solution of NaCl in 
> water will also do as a substitute for the clorox water and should do 
> the trick.  With time, after a couple of projects, you'll decide a PIC 
> isn't worth the pain.
> 
> I met one of the guys on this list several years ago on another...and he 
> decided to start with PICs.  I noticed he listed all of his PIC tools 
> for sale soon after he tried an AVR project.
> 
> 
> REB
> 
> 
> 
> David VanHorn wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 7/2/07, John Samperi <samperi@ampertronics.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>>
>>
>>>At 07:58 AM 3/07/2007, you wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>What I'm wrestling with at the moment, is what the SONAR wants though.
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>It MUST be that darned PIC messing with your mind :-)
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>Yup.. Pic rays..
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>>>but you CANNOT read the data using the broadcast address..
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>That makes sense otherwise all units would try and respond at the same
>>>time and...crash...
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>True, but if you have only one device on the bus, then why not let it respond.
>>The thing that bugs me is that this isn't a documented behaviour, and
>>their support guys said that what I was doing (including the broadcast
>>address) ought to be working.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Must admit it is getting interesting though, I tried to compile the test
>>>code on Brian Dean's website but unfortunately it must have been written
>>>with an earlier version of WinAVR and the new one does not want to compile.
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>The second write of the address seems broken, unless I'm reading it
>>wrong, he's setting up to not get an ack but testing for the ack in
>>the result code.
>> 
>>
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Dennis Clark          TTT Enterprises
www.techtoystoday.com
-------------------------------------------------