AVR-Chat

What's the best learning tool for the ARV's both interfacing and learning "C"? I've searched here on a lot of the archives and the internet trying to find the best place to start. I ordered a "Butterfly" and the Butterfly Carrier" and am thinking of ordering an "Atmel AVR C Training Course & Dev. Board" and would like some opinions on the best way to go, please. Is that polite enough? In case your wondering that last statement is for the moderator.
I know it's debatable about the best programming language to start with but after much reading have decided to go with "C". I have written programs in "Basic" many years ago when computers only had 64k memory and there was no canned software or print drivers out yet-- the days of the CPM operating system and Bill Gates was still in high school. Maybe I should have stuck with it and I would have several billion now. Anyway, any help you might care to provide would be greatly appreciated-- about the Amtel C Training Board that is.

Avrfreaks.net forum, Smiley's book.

If you are a total novice in C, best to start on PCs with C, then move to micros.



--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "u4ia2000" <u4ia2000@...> wrote:

>
> What's the best learning tool for the ARV's both interfacing and learning "C"? I've searched here on a lot of the archives and the internet trying to find the best place to start. I ordered a "Butterfly" and the Butterfly Carrier" and am thinking of ordering an "Atmel AVR C Training Course & Dev. Board" and would like some opinions on the best way to go, please. Is that polite enough? In case your wondering that last statement is for the moderator.
> I know it's debatable about the best programming language to start with but after much reading have decided to go with "C". I have written programs in "Basic" many years ago when computers only had 64k memory and there was no canned software or print drivers out yet-- the days of the CPM operating system and Bill Gates was still in high school. Maybe I should have stuck with it and I would have several billion now. Anyway, any help you might care to provide would be greatly appreciated-- about the Amtel C Training Board that is.
>

A Butterfly will get you quite a ways. It IS inexpensive. It will  
allow you to develop some skill with C. With a built-in bootloader, it  
is relatively easy to use. It IS short on a diversity of I/O. In  
addition to the LCD, there is a beeper, I think. It will let you learn  
a LOT about timers, and those are key elements of many programs (and  
sometimes confusing to learn).

Best is really in the eye of the beholder. I also got my start with  
BASIC, pre-CPM, even.  But, I am reasonably comfortable with this  
modern c-thingie. Guess it will stay with us for at least a few more  
years.

There really is no "c training board", that I know of because any such  
board can also be an "assembler training board". Many use the Atmel  
STK-500.

Jim Wagner
Oregon Research Electronics

On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:50 AM, u4ia2000 wrote:

> What's the best learning tool for the ARV's both interfacing and  
> learning "C"? I've searched here on a lot of the archives and the  
> internet trying to find the best place to start. I ordered a  
> "Butterfly" and the Butterfly Carrier" and am thinking of ordering  
> an "Atmel AVR C Training Course & Dev. Board" and would like some  
> opinions on the best way to go, please. Is that polite enough? In  
> case your wondering that last statement is for the moderator.
> I know it's debatable about the best programming language to start  
> with but after much reading have decided to go with "C". I have  
> written programs in "Basic" many years ago when computers only had  
> 64k memory and there was no canned software or print drivers out  
> yet-- the days of the CPM operating system and Bill Gates was still  
> in high school. Maybe I should have stuck with it and I would have  
> several billion now. Anyway, any help you might care to provide  
> would be greatly appreciated-- about the Amtel C Training Board that  
> is.
>
>
> 



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

Autonomous Roving Vehicle?




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

Forgive the shameless plug, but the company I used to work for has a
simple prototyping board just for beginners:
http://www.maximumrobotics.com/store/p/1111-MaxBoard-ProtoAVR.aspx

The board was designed for distinct groups, beginners looking for a
simple way to use a AVR with breadboarded circuits, and hobbyists
wanting to build more permanent circuits, but not wanting to invest in
custom PCBs. The board includes a 3x4" prototyping area for soldered
circuits, or you can attach your solderless breadboard in that area
for simple breadboarding.

The board has all the supporting components needed by the ATMega164p
microcontroller (or optional 324p or 644p) preinstalled, so you can be
certain that the MCU portion of your circuit works as expected. Unlike
most 'training boards', the ProtoAVR doesn't include a bunch of
buttons, switches, and pots that you will almost never use. The board
includes only what is required by the AVR, and you can add any other
components you need, as you need them. This approach also guarantees
maximum flexibility, since it leaves all the chips IO pins free to use
as you need them.

OK, sales pitch over, thanks for your patience!

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM, u4ia2000<u4ia2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's the best learning tool for the ARV's both interfacing and learning "C"? I've searched here on a lot of the archives and the internet trying to find the best place to start. I ordered a "Butterfly" and the Butterfly Carrier" and am thinking of ordering an "Atmel AVR C Training Course & Dev. Board" and would like some opinions on the best way to go, please. Is that polite enough? In case your wondering that last statement is for the moderator.
> I know it's debatable about the best programming language to start with but after much reading have decided to go with "C". I have written programs in "Basic" many years ago when computers only had 64k memory and there was no canned software or print drivers out yet-- the days of the CPM operating system and Bill Gates was still in high school. Maybe I should have stuck with it and I would have several billion now. Anyway, any help you might care to provide would be greatly appreciated-- about the Amtel C Training Board that is.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

You already have a Butterfly and Butterfly Carrier.

Joe Pardue of Smiley Micros
http://www.smileymicros.com/
is big on the Butterfly as a AVR learning platform. He has written a book, "C Programming for Microcontrollers" selling for $45,
http://www.smileymicros.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=26
that is a training course on using AVRs, using the Butterfly.

He has a $99 hardware project kit
http://www.smileymicros.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=26

Smiley also is a regular contribuator on AVRFreaks,
www.avrfreaks.net

By the time you go through the book you should be well versed in programming AVRs with the C language.

From what I got out of the "Atmel AVR C Training Course & Dev. Board" sight the software CD is copy protected. Any company that does not trust me, I don't trust them.

Mike

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "u4ia2000" <u4ia2000@...> wrote:
>
> What's the best learning tool for the ARV's both interfacing and learning "C"? I've searched here on a lot of the archives and the 
>Trimmed

Wow, Thanks for all the great responces.

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "brewski922" <Brewskister@...> wrote:

> ... "Atmel AVR C Training Course
> & Dev. Board" ... software CD is
> copy protected. Any company that
> does not trust me, I don't trust
> them.

You should put your brain in gear before you post things like that.  Are you the only person who has this CD?  Maybe a few other people have it too.  Maybe tens of thousands.  Maybe the publishers can't bring themselves to trust every one of those people.

Graham.

Graham thanks for the insult about my brain not being in gear. Is that the respect you give to all the people whose opinion you don't agree with, insult them. Grow up; quit calling people names and insulting them. And I do stand by what I said, "I don't trust them", companies that don't trust me. 

I can just see it, I buy software like that to use at work. A year from now my harddrive goes south. Trying to put the software from a copy protected CD and the CD is bad. After some quick calls, may be some credit card charges, it is set up and I download the CD over the internet. Mean while my boss would say, "what was you thinking, didn't you have your brain in gear before you bought that?"

About the "copy protected", most software is copyright protected, so are most books, music recordings, that does nothing to stop you from making a copy, I just makes it illegal. Copy protected is when they do something to the CD that will make it difficult for the legal owners from making a backup copy of it, which copyright laws permit you to make a backup copy of. No matte how much copy protection is placed on a CD the true crooks CAN make illegal copies. Look at what is being done in China. About 20 years ago a friend of mine was over there and had a CD with all kinds of copyrighted software, from Lotus, Borland, Microsoft, Word Perfect, all on one CD. Do ya smell a rat here? It was the latest stuff too. He laughed and said he would have loved to have all that software. First, knowing him, he wouldn't do it but he also said can you imagine trying to explain to customs that it was OK.

I don't like copy protected software.
It only punishes the legal owners,
Mike Bronosky


 

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, enkitec@... wrote:

>
> Graham Davies wrote:
> > --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "brewski922" <Brewskister@> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> ... "Atmel AVR C Training Course
> >> & Dev. Board" ... software CD is
> >> copy protected. Any company that
> >> does not trust me, I don't trust
> >> them.
> >>     
> >
> > You should put your brain in gear before you post things like that.  Are you the only person who has this CD?  Maybe a few other people have it too.  Maybe tens of thousands.  Maybe the publishers can't bring themselves to trust every one of those people.
> >
> > Graham.
> >
> >   
> 
>     Shouldn't that be "copyright protected" ?
> 
>     Mark Jordan
>

Graham Davies wrote:
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "brewski922" <Brewskister@...> wrote:
>
>   
>> ... "Atmel AVR C Training Course
>> & Dev. Board" ... software CD is
>> copy protected. Any company that
>> does not trust me, I don't trust
>> them.
>>     
>
> You should put your brain in gear before you post things like that.  Are you the only person who has this CD?  Maybe a few other people have it too.  Maybe tens of thousands.  Maybe the publishers can't bring themselves to trust every one of those people.
>
> Graham.
>
>   

    Shouldn't that be "copyright protected" ?

    Mark Jordan

Spend years of your own labor, at odd hours of the day and night as well 
as intermingled among such things as family and work at a real job, 10s 
of thousands of your own buckaroos to develop and then market a product 
only to have some yahoo steal it from you ... or steal your design.

Get back to us about how your attitude concerning this matter is then, 
will you?

And as far as that goes, I suspect Graham has had some of his personal 
work product hijacked ... as have many of the rest of us.  So yes, most 
of us will get pithy about such matters.



brewski922 wrote:

> Graham thanks for the insult about my brain not being in gear. Is that the respect you give to all the people whose opinion you don't agree with, insult them. Grow up; quit calling people names and insulting them. And I do stand by what I said, "I don't trust them", companies that don't trust me. 
>
> I can just see it, I buy software like that to use at work. A year from now my harddrive goes south. Trying to put the software from a copy protected CD and the CD is bad. After some quick calls, may be some credit card charges, it is set up and I download the CD over the internet. Mean while my boss would say, "what was you thinking, didn't you have your brain in gear before you bought that?"
>
> About the "copy protected", most software is copyright protected, so are most books, music recordings, that does nothing to stop you from making a copy, I just makes it illegal. Copy protected is when they do something to the CD that will make it difficult for the legal owners from making a backup copy of it, which copyright laws permit you to make a backup copy of. No matte how much copy protection is placed on a CD the true crooks CAN make illegal copies. Look at what is being done in China. About 20 years ago a friend of mine was over there and had a CD with all kinds of copyrighted software, from Lotus, Borland, Microsoft, Word Perfect, all on one CD. Do ya smell a rat here? It was the latest stuff too. He laughed and said he would have loved to have all that software. First, knowing him, he wouldn't do it but he also said can you imagine trying to explain to customs that it was OK.
>
> I don't like copy protected software.
> It only punishes the legal owners,
> Mike Bronosky
>

MODERATOR WARNING:

It's ok to debate, but keep it civil please.
Obviously this is a subject with some strong opinions attached.

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, David VanHorn <microbrix@...> wrote:

> MODERATOR WARNING:
> ... keep it civil please.

OK, thanks for the warning.  I apologize to Mike and everyone for the "brain in gear" comment.  I only meant it in the sense that I myself often realize that something I've said or written wasn't properly thought through and excuse myself by saying that my brain wasn't in gear.  I didn't mean to disparage the brain itself.

I accept Mike's position in his follow-up post as being reasonable.  We've had off-line hugs, so we should be all done with this thread.

And now back to your regular programming ...

Graham.

No problem, things get a little heated sometimes, and then we have to
raise a flag.
Discuss all you like, express opinions, no problem, just keep it professional.

(Unless it's about how PICs suck.. !)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Graham Davies<Yahoo37849@ecrostech.com> wrote:
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, David VanHorn <microbrix@...> wrote:
>
>> MODERATOR WARNING:
>> ... keep it civil please.
>
> OK, thanks for the warning.  I apologize to Mike and everyone for the "brain in gear" comment.  I only meant it in the sense that I myself often realize that something I've said or written wasn't properly thought through and excuse myself by saying that my brain wasn't in gear.  I didn't mean to disparage the brain itself.
>
> I accept Mike's position in his follow-up post as being reasonable.  We've had off-line hugs, so we should be all done with this thread.
>
> And now back to your regular programming ...
>
> Graham.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Talking of which, how can I get my friend and work client to switch to the
AVR.. I told him all about them at the start but he ended up going down the
PIC route and PicBasic Pro (even worse). Now we have a big issue trying to
do CAN bus work on the PIC he is using because of the all that silly bank
switching.

 

I for one am glad I moved from the PIC years ago (over 12 now) as I had so
much hassle with them. With the AVR and Codevision they are a dream to work
with and my time to complete projects for clients is reduced considerably.

 

Long live the AVR!!!

 

Dave.

From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of David VanHorn
Sent: 13 August 2009 07:15
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Copy Protection and Trust (was Re: ARV C Training
Board)

 

(Unless it's about how PICs suck.. !)





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

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Dave
McLaughlin<dave_mclaughlin@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> Talking of which, how can I get my friend and work client to switch to the
> AVR.. I told him all about them at the start but he ended up going down the
> PIC route and PicBasic Pro (even worse). Now we have a big issue trying to
> do CAN bus work on the PIC he is using because of the all that silly bank
> switching.
>

I think PICs with CAN will at least be a PIC18 and should not be
suffering from the bank switching. You can use Microchip's C18
compiler.

And the PIC24 is quite capable and C30 is based on GCC.
PIC32 is even more capable and C32 is based on GCC.

> I for one am glad I moved from the PIC years ago (over 12 now) as I had so
> much hassle with them. With the AVR and Codevision they are a dream to work
> with and my time to complete projects for clients is reduced considerably.
>
> Long live the AVR!!!

Probably. Atmel will probably survive even after years of losing money.

Anyway, IMHO maybe PIC and AVR will not matter too much
in the future (especially higher-pin count device) since Cortex M3
based MCU is now of quite low cost. A decent US$2 Cortex M3
based MCU will beat any PIC18/AVR of comparable features.
Cortex M0 will even be more cost competitive.


-- 
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Clark" <dlc@...> wrote:
>
> Microchip vs. Atmel ... PIC ... can
> be counted on.  Microchip has never
> obsoleted a part ...  None of the
> other micro manufacturers can say
> that.

Atmel claim to have never obsoleted a "pinout".  What I understand this to mean is that if they obsolete a part, there is another part that will drop right into its place.  For example, the ATmega16 and ATmega16L are being obsoleted but you can just use an ATmega16A in the same place and you're back in business.

Graham.

I'll top post here because I'm not responding to anything in particular.
 Some office mates and I were talking about Microchip vs. Atmel, NXP,
ST, etc. and came to the conclusion that even though the PIC isn't the
fastest, or the lowest powered micro they have prospered because they
are utterly reliable and can be counted on.  Microchip has never
obsoleted a part and stopped making it.  You can count on your chip
being there, always.  None of the other micro manufacturers can say
that.

IMO,
DLC

> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Dave
> McLaughlin<dave_mclaughlin@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> Talking of which, how can I get my friend and work client to switch to
>> the
>> AVR.. I told him all about them at the start but he ended up going down
>> the
>> PIC route and PicBasic Pro (even worse). Now we have a big issue trying
>> to
>> do CAN bus work on the PIC he is using because of the all that silly
>> bank
>> switching.
>>
>
> I think PICs with CAN will at least be a PIC18 and should not be
> suffering from the bank switching. You can use Microchip's C18
> compiler.
>
> And the PIC24 is quite capable and C30 is based on GCC.
> PIC32 is even more capable and C32 is based on GCC.
>
>> I for one am glad I moved from the PIC years ago (over 12 now) as I had
>> so
>> much hassle with them. With the AVR and Codevision they are a dream to
>> work
>> with and my time to complete projects for clients is reduced
>> considerably.
>>
>> Long live the AVR!!!
>
> Probably. Atmel will probably survive even after years of losing money.
>
> Anyway, IMHO maybe PIC and AVR will not matter too much
> in the future (especially higher-pin count device) since Cortex M3
> based MCU is now of quite low cost. A decent US$2 Cortex M3
> based MCU will beat any PIC18/AVR of comparable features.
> Cortex M0 will even be more cost competitive.
>
>
> --
> Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dennis Clark
TTT Enterprises

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

On Aug 14, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Graham Davies wrote:

> Atmel claim to have never obsoleted a "pinout".  What I understand  
> this to mean is that if they obsolete a part, there is another part  
> that will drop right into its place.  For example, the ATmega16 and  
> ATmega16L are being obsoleted but you can just use an ATmega16A in  
> the same place and you're back in business.


That works in some situations but there are many where one absolutely  
must have the original part, not just a pinout or code compatible part  
else the entire design must be requalified.

Am thinking of anything safety critical such as anything gas operated.

Especially so if you are doing anything that might be considered  
tricky such as a furnace ignition on the same PCB.

I know of a shop that uses millions of PICs per year for this very  
reason. They got tired of RCA changing the masks of the 6805's they  
were once buying.

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

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]

The thing that got me into the AVR was the cost of development. At the time
I was working for a company and we bought the ICEPIC2 in circuit emulator
but it was expensive and required special daughter boards for each different
device you wanted to use.

 

I then found out about the AVR and the ICE 200 emulator and at the time this
was really cheap compared to the PIC stuff I had been using. I later
upgraded to the JTAG ICE and then the JTAG ICE II. In my early days I would
do all the debugging by guess work but once I had use an emulator I never
went back. I won't choose a device now without it having some form of in
circuit emulation. I see the later PIC devices have onboard ICE now but for
me the AVR is a better choice since I already spent my money on hardware and
software for it. I have even kept Codevision AVR on maintenance since the
first time I used it many moons ago.

 

Dave.



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

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "tim gilbert" <tim@jeminnovation.com>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: PIC's s*ck!!


> 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.

Microchip is number one in 8-bit MCUs because it gives customers what they 
want, support is excellent , and they provide good, low-cost tools. They 
also make a very nice range of 16-bit devices (the dsPICs and PIC24) with a 
better architecture than the AVR, much more performance and a lower price. I 
use both AVRs and PICs, but I find that I can usually find a PIC to do an 
equivalent job to an AVR at a lower price.

Leon

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Moses O McKnight" <moses@skytex.net>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: PIC's s*ck!!


> I'll have to agree with Leon here.  When I have looked at Atmel chips
> thinking about replacements for the PIC chips we use, the only chips I
> found that had all the features we needed were much larger and more
> expensive than the PIC we were using.
>
> One of my gripes with the Microchip stuff though is the lack of free or
> inexpensive C compilers for the 16-and-higher-bit devices.  An even
> bigger gripe is the lack of Linux support, which is one of the main
> reasons I started using AVR.

The free version of the C30 compiler loses some optimisations after 60 days. 
Highly optimised free libraries are available for most applications, so it 
doesn't matter much to most users.

Leon

On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 04:14 +0100, leon Heller wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "tim gilbert" <tim@jeminnovation.com>
> To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: PIC's s*ck!!
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Microchip is number one in 8-bit MCUs because it gives customers what they 
> want, support is excellent , and they provide good, low-cost tools. They 
> also make a very nice range of 16-bit devices (the dsPICs and PIC24) with a 
> better architecture than the AVR, much more performance and a lower price. I 
> use both AVRs and PICs, but I find that I can usually find a PIC to do an 
> equivalent job to an AVR at a lower price.
> 
> Leon 

I'll have to agree with Leon here.  When I have looked at Atmel chips
thinking about replacements for the PIC chips we use, the only chips I
found that had all the features we needed were much larger and more
expensive than the PIC we were using.

One of my gripes with the Microchip stuff though is the lack of free or
inexpensive C compilers for the 16-and-higher-bit devices.  An even
bigger gripe is the lack of Linux support, which is one of the main
reasons I started using AVR.

Moses