AVR-Chat

I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which is best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and cheaper to work with.

Brian

Dave,

I agree with you.

I started researching the PIC and the AVR seemed so much more simple and cheaper.

In the future I would like to see a magazine or something that deals with the AVR and CV using C. This sounds limiting since there are more options than I know about but wanting to learn. I have never used JTAG or the XMEGA's yet.

There is alot I don't know and would like something like this to learn from.

So far I have made a simon says, temp datalogger with thermostate with heating and cooling control (working on a VB2008 interface), lever meter using accelerometers and a LED dice cube.

Brian

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "Dave McLaughlin" <dave_mclaughlin@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Brian,
> 
>  
> 
> I started off with the PIC myself. I chose it because I could buy a cheap
> starter kit and start programming it easily. I then started using it in my
> work place and we purchased an ICE for it. For hobby use I was finding
> debugging a major issue without the ICE and I started to look around for
> something else. We had been using the National Semi COP8 and that had a
> cheap emulator but the cost of the compiler put me off of it. I then
> discovered the AT902313 and I found that I could by a cheapish emulator, the
> ICE200 and it could be used with the larger IC's like the 8515 at the time.
> I then progressed to the Mega devices and bought the JTAG ICE and then
> finally the JTAG ICE Mk II and have never looked back. If you use the AVR
> devices without the ICE, then you will not want to do debugging without one
> after you have. I know a lot of guys who programme without and put in things
> like toggling IO pins to show position of code but when you want to check
> the value of a variable and don't have a STDIO to print to, you will soon
> see what I mean. What I am trying to say is that the AVR has some excellent
> priced emulation tools that cover more devices than the PIC does.
> 
>  
> 
> I still use the AVR devices for all the small projects. There are some other
> great devices out there but the cost of development is a little on the high
> side. For me, the initial cost of the Codevision compiler and the yearly
> support has been worth it for over 8 years now. I have looked at the PIC
> again and again but the lack of low cost emulation (there are emulators but
> they don't cover all the devices, where my JTAG ICE now also covers the XMEG
> and the AVR32 devices) has put me off them. Also the fact that the
> architecture is not ideal for C and a decent compiler for it is still
> expensive.
> 
>  
> 
> The PIC has the advantage that nearly all the electronics magazines do
> articles on it so that is maybe why it is more popular.
> 
>  
> 
> If you look around the web at projects for both, you will probably find that
> most PIC projects are in either PIC Basic or assembler, whereas I have seen
> a lot more in C now for the AVR. WINAVR is a nice capable free compiler if
> you don't need a lot of libraries to get you going.
> 
>  
> 
> The above is just my opinion and in the past I have managed to convert a
> number of PIC users over to the AVR based on the above.
> 
>  
> 
> Dave.
> 
>  
> 
> From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of blue_eagle74
> Sent: 21 December 2009 09:50
> To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AVR-Chat] magazine
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that
> alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a
> magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which is
> best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and cheaper
> to work with.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Dec 20, 2009, at 6:50 PM, blue_eagle74 wrote:

> I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems  
> that alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is  
> there a magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not  
> asking which is best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is  
> alot easier and cheaper to work with.
>
> Brian
>
>
> 
There has been an AVR series in one of those. Have not seen a magazine  
that is particularly strong on AVRs. Some of the AVR article series  
have been collected here:

http://www.smileymicros.com/

See "Smiley's Workshop" in the right hand column of the page.

Jim

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

Hi Brian,

 

I started off with the PIC myself. I chose it because I could buy a cheap
starter kit and start programming it easily. I then started using it in my
work place and we purchased an ICE for it. For hobby use I was finding
debugging a major issue without the ICE and I started to look around for
something else. We had been using the National Semi COP8 and that had a
cheap emulator but the cost of the compiler put me off of it. I then
discovered the AT902313 and I found that I could by a cheapish emulator, the
ICE200 and it could be used with the larger IC's like the 8515 at the time.
I then progressed to the Mega devices and bought the JTAG ICE and then
finally the JTAG ICE Mk II and have never looked back. If you use the AVR
devices without the ICE, then you will not want to do debugging without one
after you have. I know a lot of guys who programme without and put in things
like toggling IO pins to show position of code but when you want to check
the value of a variable and don't have a STDIO to print to, you will soon
see what I mean. What I am trying to say is that the AVR has some excellent
priced emulation tools that cover more devices than the PIC does.

 

I still use the AVR devices for all the small projects. There are some other
great devices out there but the cost of development is a little on the high
side. For me, the initial cost of the Codevision compiler and the yearly
support has been worth it for over 8 years now. I have looked at the PIC
again and again but the lack of low cost emulation (there are emulators but
they don't cover all the devices, where my JTAG ICE now also covers the XMEG
and the AVR32 devices) has put me off them. Also the fact that the
architecture is not ideal for C and a decent compiler for it is still
expensive.

 

The PIC has the advantage that nearly all the electronics magazines do
articles on it so that is maybe why it is more popular.

 

If you look around the web at projects for both, you will probably find that
most PIC projects are in either PIC Basic or assembler, whereas I have seen
a lot more in C now for the AVR. WINAVR is a nice capable free compiler if
you don't need a lot of libraries to get you going.

 

The above is just my opinion and in the past I have managed to convert a
number of PIC users over to the AVR based on the above.

 

Dave.

From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of blue_eagle74
Sent: 21 December 2009 09:50
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AVR-Chat] magazine

 

  

I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that
alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a
magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which is
best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and cheaper
to work with.

Brian



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

FYI, in the latest beta of AVRStudio, the 32k debugging limit was
removed from the $50 AVR Dragon. It can now debug all Atmel 8 bit hips
that support JTAG or DebugWire.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Dave McLaughlin
<dave_mclaughlin@nerdshack.com> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> I started off with the PIC myself. I chose it because I could buy a cheap
> starter kit and start programming it easily. I then started using it in my
> work place and we purchased an ICE for it. For hobby use I was finding
> debugging a major issue without the ICE and I started to look around for
> something else. We had been using the National Semi COP8 and that had a
> cheap emulator but the cost of the compiler put me off of it. I then
> discovered the AT902313 and I found that I could by a cheapish emulator, the
> ICE200 and it could be used with the larger IC's like the 8515 at the time.
> I then progressed to the Mega devices and bought the JTAG ICE and then
> finally the JTAG ICE Mk II and have never looked back. If you use the AVR
> devices without the ICE, then you will not want to do debugging without one
> after you have. I know a lot of guys who programme without and put in things
> like toggling IO pins to show position of code but when you want to check
> the value of a variable and don't have a STDIO to print to, you will soon
> see what I mean. What I am trying to say is that the AVR has some excellent
> priced emulation tools that cover more devices than the PIC does.
>
>
>
> I still use the AVR devices for all the small projects. There are some other
> great devices out there but the cost of development is a little on the high
> side. For me, the initial cost of the Codevision compiler and the yearly
> support has been worth it for over 8 years now. I have looked at the PIC
> again and again but the lack of low cost emulation (there are emulators but
> they don't cover all the devices, where my JTAG ICE now also covers the XMEG
> and the AVR32 devices) has put me off them. Also the fact that the
> architecture is not ideal for C and a decent compiler for it is still
> expensive.
>
>
>
> The PIC has the advantage that nearly all the electronics magazines do
> articles on it so that is maybe why it is more popular.
>
>
>
> If you look around the web at projects for both, you will probably find that
> most PIC projects are in either PIC Basic or assembler, whereas I have seen
> a lot more in C now for the AVR. WINAVR is a nice capable free compiler if
> you don't need a lot of libraries to get you going.
>
>
>
> The above is just my opinion and in the past I have managed to convert a
> number of PIC users over to the AVR based on the above.
>
>
>
> Dave.
>
>
>
> From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of blue_eagle74
> Sent: 21 December 2009 09:50
> To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AVR-Chat] magazine
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that
> alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a
> magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which is
> best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and cheaper
> to work with.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi Brian

 

I have used the AVR for a lot of hobby projects and this year when I started
my own business I designed my first commercial project with the AT90CAN128.
This was quite tricky as I had to do the PCB design and the software for it
in a very short time. It was designed to multiplex two 4-20mA sensors on one
2 wire cable with the return grounded to the structure. Software uses Modbus
over RS232 and CAN bus (selectable).

 

Using the Codevision compiler I was able to get it completed in about 2
weeks which was quite a task as all the code was written from scratch except
for the CAN bus which I ported from the AVR library. The AVR rocks!!

 

If you have the cash to purchase the JTAG you will be amazed at how much
easier your debugging becomes. Saying that, Mike Payson just posted about
the AVR Dragon now has no 32K debugging limit so this would be a great way
into JTAG debugging at a very low cost.

 

By the way, I used to only ever put in a JTAG interface on my designs and
just programmed the devices over that. I recently had an issue where I could
not programme the device and had to wire up the ISP pins to get it to
programme. I now also add an ISP interface to my designs. :o)

 

Dave.

From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of blue_eagle74
Sent: 21 December 2009 10:39
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AVR-Chat] Re: magazine

 

  

Dave,

I agree with you.

I started researching the PIC and the AVR seemed so much more simple and
cheaper.

In the future I would like to see a magazine or something that deals with
the AVR and CV using C. This sounds limiting since there are more options
than I know about but wanting to learn. I have never used JTAG or the
XMEGA's yet.

There is alot I don't know and would like something like this to learn from.

So far I have made a simon says, temp datalogger with thermostate with
heating and cooling control (working on a VB2008 interface), lever meter
using accelerometers and a LED dice cube.

Brian





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

The PIC is the 800 pound gorilla, and because Microchip NEVER obsoletes 
a part, it is the 8 bitter of choice for a commercial project.  However, 
for the hobbyist, the AVR is the better choice (IMO) due to the open 
source capabilities and the far less expensive programmer hardware. 
I've written up as many projects using the AVR as the PIC, more or less, 
and I use both on a regular basis.  I wouldn't feel bad about backing 
the wrong horse, the AVR is the better choice for many projects.

IMO,
DLC

blue_eagle74 wrote:
> I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which is best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and cheaper to work with.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

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

On Dec 20, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Dave McLaughlin wrote:

> The PIC has the advantage that nearly all the electronics magazines do
> articles on it so that is maybe why it is more popular.


Do you say PIC is more popular because you see it in magazines, or because it is more popular it is in more magazines?

I strongly suspect if one looks under the covers one would find Microchip is generous with support and other goodies (including cash) to known published developers. Support for the little guy is something Microchip figured out at least 15 years ago.

There is an entire industry built around authoring magazine articles featuring products from manufacturers who will then pay $50 and up for mention of their products. In many fields the reviewer is given the merchandise for free in exchange for a published review or mention. If the review is not favorable then that author no longer gets new stuff to review.

Back in the dark ages Motorola dominated the microcontroller market with HC05 and HC11. But it was difficult to get parts or support. Even those who were known to ship 1E6 MCU's per year had to beg for allocation. When one could buy PIC CPU's from DigiKey or Mouser for only a phone call, the only source of Motorola chips was through a formal distributor. And only after the local Motorola office approved.

Atmel was slower to recognize Microchip's marketing techniques. The doofus at Atmel who approves the cartoon superhero ads needs to find another job. The AVR Dragon, and finally removing the 32k limit, is the 2nd best marketing move Atmel has ever made. Their best move was whatever they did to get the level of support in gcc that we now enjoy.

Motorola spun off their microprocessors and created Freescale who is doing a bit better but has missed the boat they once owned.

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

At 04:02 PM 21/12/2009, you wrote:
>Motorola dominated the microcontroller market with HC05 and HC11.

Those chip NEVER existed according to Motorola/Frescale.

Regards

John Samperi

********************************************************
Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.
11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA
Tel. (02) 9674-6495       Fax (02) 9674-8745
Website  http://www.ampertronics.com.au
*Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly
********************************************************

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

From: "blue_eagle74" <blue_eagle74@yahoo.com>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:50 AM
Subject: [AVR-Chat] magazine


>I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that 
>alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a 
>magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which 
>is best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and 
>cheaper to work with.

Designers select a chip which gets the job done as cheaply and easily as 
possible. In some situations it might be an AVR, in another it might be PIC, 
or something else. Microchip is the market leader in 8-bit MCUs, which 
probably explains the preponderance of PIC projects (Atmel is fifth). PICs 
are popular because of the low cost of the tools, excellent support and the 
vast range of devices that they make. I use both PICs and AVRs (and lots of 
other chips), and don't find PICs any harder to use than AVRs. I find that 
they are often cheaper for a given application.

Leon

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

From: "Dave McLaughlin" <dave_mclaughlin@nerdshack.com>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:19 AM
Subject: RE: [AVR-Chat] magazine


> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> I started off with the PIC myself. I chose it because I could buy a cheap
> starter kit and start programming it easily. I then started using it in my
> work place and we purchased an ICE for it. For hobby use I was finding
> debugging a major issue without the ICE and I started to look around for
> something else. We had been using the National Semi COP8 and that had a
> cheap emulator but the cost of the compiler put me off of it. I then
> discovered the AT902313 and I found that I could by a cheapish emulator, 
> the
> ICE200 and it could be used with the larger IC's like the 8515 at the 
> time.
> I then progressed to the Mega devices and bought the JTAG ICE and then
> finally the JTAG ICE Mk II and have never looked back. If you use the AVR
> devices without the ICE, then you will not want to do debugging without 
> one
> after you have. I know a lot of guys who programme without and put in 
> things
> like toggling IO pins to show position of code but when you want to check
> the value of a variable and don't have a STDIO to print to, you will soon
> see what I mean. What I am trying to say is that the AVR has some 
> excellent
> priced emulation tools that cover more devices than the PIC does.

That's not actually true. The $35 PICkit 2 programs and debugs all Microchip 
devcies except the PIC32.

Leon

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.

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!
But I always thought it was dumb too, that the Atmel chip had to be running
with a crystal in order to program it.

Anyway, with the newer rave generation(age) and a proliferation of low cost
tools, choice of micro today is essentially based on price/performance.

I have not looked too hard, but I think that All chips that come out today
should be hardwire micro-coded to use the USB for programming/diagnostics
without affecting the chip architecture.

Roland



2009/12/21 leon Heller <leon355@btinternet.com>

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave McLaughlin" <dave_mclaughlin@nerdshack.com<dave_mclaughlin%40nerdshack.com>
> >
> To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com <AVR-Chat%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:19 AM
> Subject: RE: [AVR-Chat] magazine
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> >
> >
> > I started off with the PIC myself. I chose it because I could buy a cheap
> > starter kit and start programming it easily. I then started using it in
> my
> > work place and we purchased an ICE for it. For hobby use I was finding
> > debugging a major issue without the ICE and I started to look around for
> > something else. We had been using the National Semi COP8 and that had a
> > cheap emulator but the cost of the compiler put me off of it. I then
> > discovered the AT902313 and I found that I could by a cheapish emulator,
> > the
> > ICE200 and it could be used with the larger IC's like the 8515 at the
> > time.
> > I then progressed to the Mega devices and bought the JTAG ICE and then
> > finally the JTAG ICE Mk II and have never looked back. If you use the AVR
> > devices without the ICE, then you will not want to do debugging without
> > one
> > after you have. I know a lot of guys who programme without and put in
> > things
> > like toggling IO pins to show position of code but when you want to check
> > the value of a variable and don't have a STDIO to print to, you will soon
> > see what I mean. What I am trying to say is that the AVR has some
> > excellent
> > priced emulation tools that cover more devices than the PIC does.
>
> That's not actually true. The $35 PICkit 2 programs and debugs all
> Microchip
> devcies except the PIC32.
>
> Leon
>
>  
>


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

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.

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:06:41PM -0000, leon Heller wrote:
> 
> Designers select a chip which gets the job done as cheaply and easily
> as possible. In some situations it might be an AVR, in another it
> might be PIC, or something else.

Only *good* designers do that. Others have chip/vendor religion. When one
is not willing to use any tool other than a hammer, all problems look
like nails.

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

That is certainly the case now but 8+ years ago this was not the situation.
The only ICE that was viable was the RF Solutions ICEPIC but even this was
over US$1500 at the time and this was with only 1 daughterboard and you
needed more than 1 if you wanted to use other devices. Way beyond the reach
of hobbyists. The PIC emulator was twice this as I recall.

 

Dave.

From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of leon Heller
Sent: 21 December 2009 19:09
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] magazine

 

That's not actually true. The $35 PICkit 2 programs and debugs all Microchip

devcies except the PIC32.

Leon 



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

The hardware is not the only selection criteria, the required development tools, experience with the devices and already designed modules that can be used and intefaced quickly should also be classed as part of the expense. Time is "expensive" also.
 
Regards


--- On Mon, 21/12/09, David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> wrote:

From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] magazine
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 21 December, 2009, 15:18


  



On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:06:41PM -0000, leon Heller wrote:
> 
> Designers select a chip which gets the job done as cheaply and easily
> as possible. In some situations it might be an AVR, in another it
> might be PIC, or something else.

Only *good* designers do that. Others have chip/vendor religion. When one
is not willing to use any tool other than a hammer, all problems look
like nails.

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







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

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

From: "Dennis Clark" <dlc@frii.com>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] magazine


> ... And Microchip's developer support is second to none in my experience.
> Atmel, not so much - However, both have an experienced and chatting
> developer support network in the form of "us".  :)  I like them both, and
> use them both professionally.

I've found Microchip support to be much faster than Atmel's, and better. I 
usually get a response in under 24 hours from Microchip. Atmel typically 
takes several days to respond.

Leon

... And Microchip's developer support is second to none in my experience. 
Atmel, not so much - However, both have an experienced and chatting
developer support network in the form of "us".  :)  I like them both, and
use them both professionally.

DLC

> The hardware is not the only selection criteria, the required development
> tools, experience with the devices and already designed modules that can
> be used and intefaced quickly should also be classed as part of the
> expense. Time is "expensive" also.
> Â 
> Regards
>
>
> --- On Mon, 21/12/09, David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>
> Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] magazine
> To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, 21 December, 2009, 15:18
>
>
> Â 
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:06:41PM -0000, leon Heller wrote:
>>
>> Designers select a chip which gets the job done as cheaply and easily
>> as possible. In some situations it might be an AVR, in another it
>> might be PIC, or something else.
>
> Only *good* designers do that. Others have chip/vendor religion. When one
> is not willing to use any tool other than a hammer, all problems look
> like nails.
>
> --
> David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY. net
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =========
> ======
> Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dennis Clark
TTT Enterprises

Alot of good info. Thank everyone for your input.

I was thinking of using PICs just to have both. Right now I have a 500 and love it.

Brian

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "blue_eagle74" <blue_eagle74@...> wrote:

>
> I have been reading the circuit celler and nuts and volts. It seems that alot of projects are for the PIC. Is the PIC better to use? Is there a magazine mainly for the AVR that I don't know about? I'm not asking which is best but why all the PIC projects? To me the AVR is alot easier and cheaper to work with.
> 
> Brian
>

Interesting thread but back to the topic of AVR Magazine. I have subscribed to Servo since the premiere issue. While an AVR article shows up now and then they are few and far between. Most are for the PIC family. If Servo don't straighten out there act and start supporting AVR more I will stop supporting Servo via a subscription. I realize the need to support the masses but surely there could be some support for AVR, if only via an on-line AVR addition. Seems to me that Nuts and Volts or Servo could publish an on-line version that supports AVR and another that supports PIC. You could subscribe to either or both at a greatly reduced price because several articles in one will most likely appear in the other.

Mike

At 10:08 AM 22/12/2009, you wrote:
>I was thinking of using PICs just to have both.

You'll have such a shock your hair will fall out.
So you really must choose Pics or hair. :-)


Regards

John Samperi

********************************************************
Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.
11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA
Tel. (02) 9674-6495       Fax (02) 9674-8745
Website  http://www.ampertronics.com.au
*Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly
********************************************************

HI Mike,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:11 PM, MoreOrLess <Brewskister@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting thread but back to the topic of AVR Magazine. I have subscribed to Servo since the premiere issue. While an AVR article shows up now and then they are few and far between. Most are for the PIC family. If Servo don't straighten out there act and start supporting AVR more I will stop supporting Servo via a subscription. I realize the need to support the masses but surely there could be some support for AVR, if only via an on-line AVR addition. Seems to me that Nuts and Volts or Servo could publish an on-line version that supports AVR and another that supports PIC. You could subscribe to either or both at a greatly reduced price because several articles in one will most likely appear in the other.

If you want some more AVR articles then write some.

Generally speaking, magazines like servo publish what they get. If
they get more PIC articles than AVR then they'll publish more PIC
articles than AVR.

-- 
Dave Hylands
Shuswap, BC, Canada
http://www.DaveHylands.com/

When I posted this thread, this is what I was looking at:

Starting an AVR magazine. It would take alot of work. It would include anything about AVR's.

It would take:  time, user submissions (membership input and complete projects), paid subscriptions plus shipping, finding sponsors, and  finding a place to make it into a paperback magazine.  Online articals would be later. I have the software for custome PDF documents.

Some online goups have AVR info but I would like something on paper just like circuit celler, Electronics now, or nuts and volts.

This would be a non-profit organization.

You could call me crazy, but if enough people are wanting something like this, it can be done. I would like to start it.

What do you think about it?

Brian


--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Dave Hylands <dhylands@...> wrote:

> 
> If you want some more AVR articles then write some.
> 
> Generally speaking, magazines like servo publish what they get. If
> they get more PIC articles than AVR then they'll publish more PIC
> articles than AVR.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Hylands
> Shuswap, BC, Canada
> http://www.DaveHylands.com/
>

I think you are OUT-OF-YOUR-MIND!

Are you must be a glutton for punishment. I also think its a great idea. I'm might be interested in contributing an article or two but as you can tell I'm not much of a writer. Making sense of my grammar will give a editor a full time job.

But go for it Brian.

Good luck,
Mike Bronosky
Mike@Bronosky.com


--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "blue_eagle74" <blue_eagle74@...> wrote:

>
> When I posted this thread, this is what I was looking at:
> 
> Starting an AVR magazine. It would take alot of work. It would include anything about AVR's.
> 
> You could call me crazy, but if enough people are wanting something like this, it can be done. I would like to start it.
> 
> What do you think about it?
> 
> Brian
>

At 03:15 PM 22/12/2009, you wrote:
>Starting an AVR magazine.

I believe Chuck Baird (recently published in Servo magazine)
or someone else on AVRfreaks had the same idea but gave up.


Regards

John Samperi

********************************************************
Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.
11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA
Tel. (02) 9674-6495       Fax (02) 9674-8745
Website  http://www.ampertronics.com.au
*Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly
********************************************************

Yip, crazy to want to start printing magazines.

An idea that I like is one of collaborative projects. For example, an
autopilot RC craft.
A team is assembled, tasks allocated, and all info is shared on the net.
Only team members can edit files. Of course, it can get messy, and this
where your abilities become decisive.
The management of it all is crucial, and thats maybe why it's not common.
Projects would be open to sponsors, there could share splits if the device
was to be sold, etc.

It is obvious that any 'physical' project requires a bunch of disciplines,
and the guy working on the GPS system is not necessarily interested in
gluing bits of balsa together.

Going OT again, but sounds more interesting that printing magazines (to me)
and will keep you equally busy.

Roland





2009/12/22 blue_eagle74 <blue_eagle74@yahoo.com>

>
>
> When I posted this thread, this is what I was looking at:
>
> Starting an AVR magazine. It would take alot of work. It would include
> anything about AVR's.
>
> It would take: time, user submissions (membership input and complete
> projects), paid subscriptions plus shipping, finding sponsors, and finding a
> place to make it into a paperback magazine. Online articals would be later.
> I have the software for custome PDF documents.
>
> Some online goups have AVR info but I would like something on paper just
> like circuit celler, Electronics now, or nuts and volts.
>
> This would be a non-profit organization.
>
> You could call me crazy, but if enough people are wanting something like
> this, it can be done. I would like to start it.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Brian
>
>
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com <AVR-Chat%40yahoogroups.com>, Dave Hylands
> <dhylands@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you want some more AVR articles then write some.
> >
> > Generally speaking, magazines like servo publish what they get. If
> > they get more PIC articles than AVR then they'll publish more PIC
> > articles than AVR.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Hylands
> > Shuswap, BC, Canada
> > http://www.DaveHylands.com/
> >
>
>  
>


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

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "blue_eagle74" <blue_eagle74@...> wrote:
>
> When I posted this thread, this is what I was looking at:
> 
> Starting an AVR magazine. It would take alot of work. It would include anything about AVR's.

Why not start simple, start a web site, like "make" that specializes is AVR projects.

After a year or two, you can have a paid side and a open side.

A year or two after that, you can start a dead tree version with all the money you would be making from your subscriptions.

A magazine publisher may even pick you up after they see how well you are doing.

Good idea, but don't throw away money.

Look for Midnight Engineer magazine to find out how to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Engineering

good luck

don

> 
> It would take:  time, user submissions (membership input and complete projects), paid subscriptions plus shipping, finding sponsors, and  finding a place to make it into a paperback magazine.  Online articals would be later. I have the software for custome PDF documents.
> 
> Some online goups have AVR info but I would like something on paper just like circuit celler, Electronics now, or nuts and volts.
> 
> This would be a non-profit organization.
> 
> You could call me crazy, but if enough people are wanting something like this, it can be done. I would like to start it.
> 
> What do you think about it?
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Dave Hylands <dhylands@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If you want some more AVR articles then write some.
> > 
> > Generally speaking, magazines like servo publish what they get. If
> > they get more PIC articles than AVR then they'll publish more PIC
> > articles than AVR.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dave Hylands
> > Shuswap, BC, Canada
> > http://www.DaveHylands.com/
> >
>

David Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:06:41PM -0000, leon Heller wrote:
>> Designers select a chip which gets the job done as cheaply and easily
>> as possible. In some situations it might be an AVR, in another it
>> might be PIC, or something else.
> 
> Only *good* designers do that. Others have chip/vendor religion. When one
> is not willing to use any tool other than a hammer, all problems look
> like nails.

When I used to work in a larger shop we tended to to stick with a 
particular supplier/series of parts for financial reasons beyond piece 
part price. With many dozens of products based on the same family of 
parts there is a lot of code available to shorten prototype and 
development time. Quoting lower development costs and still delivering 
products that meet the customer's requirements wins business.

That's not to say you should NEVER look at another processor. But in 
some shops mostly sticking with a certain family is a sound choice.

Tim

MoreOrLess wrote:
> Interesting thread but back to the topic of AVR Magazine. I have
> subscribed to Servo since the premiere issue. While an AVR article
> shows up now and then they are few and far between. Most are for the
> PIC family. If Servo don't straighten out there act and start
> supporting AVR more I will stop supporting Servo via a subscription.
> I realize the need to support the masses but surely there could be
> some support for AVR, if only via an on-line AVR addition. Seems to
> me that Nuts and Volts or Servo could publish an on-line version that
> supports AVR and another that supports PIC. You could subscribe to
> either or both at a greatly reduced price because several articles in
> one will most likely appear in the other.

Once upon a time I was a part of Steve Ciarcia's BYTE Research Staff and 
did some work for him in the early Circuit Cellar days as well. You 
might check with Servo and ask why they seem to be PIC centric (If you 
haven't already.) A lot of times a magazine may seem focused on a 
particular micro when in fact the reason is that micro is the one the 
people use who submit articles. In the early days Ciarcia's columns 
featured the Intel 8051 nearly 100% of the time. It was because that's 
what he happened to use in his own work, not because there was any bias 
against Moto or National.

Tim

Putting the magazine on paper, mailing it, etc. adds a lot of cost and 
aggravation to your business model in my opinion. I would go with 
electronic-only to begin with and offer treeware only if there was a 
huge outcry from paying subscribers.

I subscribe to the electronic edition of Circuit Cellar and also choose 
electronic delivery of the industry rags that offer it. The electronic 
versions are much more versatile with embedded links, searchable, very 
portable, easy to archive. If you are worried about theft from 
non-paying subscribers you could password protect them like some ebooks. 
Unscrupulous people aren't as likely to post things to the web that have 
their name, address, etc. encoded onto every page.

When can we see a sample issue? :-)

Tim

blue_eagle74 wrote:

> When I posted this thread, this is what I was looking at:
> 
> Starting an AVR magazine. It would take alot of work. It would
> include anything about AVR's.
> 
> It would take:  time, user submissions (membership input and complete
> projects), paid subscriptions plus shipping, finding sponsors, and
> finding a place to make it into a paperback magazine.  Online
> articals would be later. I have the software for custome PDF
> documents.
> 
> Some online goups have AVR info but I would like something on paper
> just like circuit celler, Electronics now, or nuts and volts.
> 
> This would be a non-profit organization.
> 
> You could call me crazy, but if enough people are wanting something
> like this, it can be done. I would like to start it.
> 
> What do you think about it?
> 
> Brian

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:22:00AM -0600, Tim McDonough wrote:
> David Kelly wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:06:41PM -0000, leon Heller wrote:
> >> Designers select a chip which gets the job done as cheaply and
> >> easily as possible. In some situations it might be an AVR, in
> >> another it might be PIC, or something else.
> > 
> > Only *good* designers do that. Others have chip/vendor religion.
> > When one is not willing to use any tool other than a hammer, all
> > problems look like nails.
> 
> When I used to work in a larger shop we tended to to stick with a
> particular supplier/series of parts for financial reasons beyond piece
> part price. With many dozens of products based on the same family of
> parts there is a lot of code available to shorten prototype and
> development time. Quoting lower development costs and still delivering
> products that meet the customer's requirements wins business.
> 
> That's not to say you should NEVER look at another processor. But in
> some shops mostly sticking with a certain family is a sound choice.

Yes, of course there is always the cost of adding yet another line item
to one's inventory. But there are many who will bust butt to shoehorn
something like ethernet on a CPU which doesn't fit "because we have
always used that CPU" when just about any other CPU would be a better
choice.

Once upon a time we had need of a test fixture for an item on a low
volume production line. Another engineer had already tasked our
excellent technician to build and wire the fixture from sketches
including an RS-232 interface to be connected to a PC. It was completed
in less than a morning. When I heard about it the Visual Basic
"programmer" assigned the task was complaining about how many weeks his
task was going to take, and take away from other things he was (not)
doing.

I designed (and coded) the product under test. Was disgusted at the VB
guy's answer, not not surprised. Thought about options during the
meeting. Then less than 2 hours later I came back to the tech with a
programmed 16C505 (I forgot, but know it was a '505, and a precious
expensive $10 ceramic reprogrammable one at that) and asked that he
rewire the wire wrapped MAX232 for the PIC, and add a push button for
"Start Of Test".

It worked 90% first time. I had bit-banged the asynchronous TX and we
didn't use a crystal on the PIC, and IIRC there are no timers or IRQ in
the '505. My baud rate was off just a bit. But on thinking about it we
decided we *liked* the tester sending a scrambled messages 1 out of 10
times as it demonstrated the unit under test's oscillator was spot-on
accurate rather than just "good enough" accurate. We didn't change a
thing. That was 15 years ago and the tester is still occasionally used
at the repair depot.

The entire PIC firmware image was less than 192 bytes (or words, its a
PIC and I forgot, probably 14 bit words?).


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

Didnt really want a totly online mag. there are other websites that do that.

Brian

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Tim McDonough <tmcdonough@...> wrote:

>
> Putting the magazine on paper, mailing it, etc. adds a lot of cost and 
> aggravation to your business model in my opinion. I would go with 
> electronic-only to begin with and offer treeware only if there was a 
> huge outcry from paying subscribers.
> 
> I subscribe to the electronic edition of Circuit Cellar and also choose 
> electronic delivery of the industry rags that offer it. The electronic 
> versions are much more versatile with embedded links, searchable, very 
> portable, easy to archive. If you are worried about theft from 
> non-paying subscribers you could password protect them like some ebooks. 
> Unscrupulous people aren't as likely to post things to the web that have 
> their name, address, etc. encoded onto every page.
> 
> When can we see a sample issue? :-)
> 
> Tim
>

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Bob Paddock <bob.paddock@...> wrote:

> ... I'm going to have to dig
> through my archives and find
> A.V.R.s name ...

AVR = [A]lf-Egil Bogen [V]egard Wollan [R]ISC.  See Wikipedia (and donate!)

> As far as online PDF's ...

It would be interesting to see how people are divided on the online versus paper issue.  I'd bet it's the geezers like me that want paper to read on the potty and the youngsters who can still read high resolution screens without spectacles that want online.

> Tux magazine published their magazine in
> Landscape Mode, and fit the screen well:

Oh, don't get me started on widescreen LCDs.  Vertical pixels, that's what I need.  Why do magazines format stuff in columns?  So you can read straight down the page without a lot of side-to-side movement of your eyes, that's why.  And as screens get shorter and wider, software puts more stuff at the top, like Microsoft Word 2007's "ribbon" user interface.  Argh!  Well, at least I snapped up a 1600 by 1200 pixel LCD before the price shot up.

Graham.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, blue_eagle74 <blue_eagle74@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
>
> Didnt really want a totly online mag. there are other websites that do
> that.
>

What will you call your AVR Magazine?

Atmel spends more on lawyers than it does in documentation development,
so you might find yourself fighting them if you use those three letters.

On the other hand such a lawsuit might force them to explain
that AVR is the initials of a person that wrote a thesis paper
on single clock cycle instruction execution.  If they really
name A.V.R. then they probably have to pay him big time royalties.
Someday I'm going to have to dig through my archives and find
A.V.R.s name, know its in there from about 1996 or so.

As Elektor seems to have money, enough to have bought
Circuit Cellar, maybe they would be interested in helping you
develop your magazine?

How are you planing to keep this venture going for more than the first issue
or two?  Quarterly?

As far as online PDF's, I don't like that the real world magazines,
Circuit Cellar for example, try to make their PDFs look like the real
magazines.  The idea is understandable, but they simply don't fit
our screens well.  Tux magazine published their magazine in
Landscape Mode, and fit the screen well:

ftp://ftp.linuxjournal.com/pub/tux/

Consider the idea for your magazine.

-- 
http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/
http://www.softwaresafety.net/
http://www.designer-iii.com/
http://www.unusualresearch.com/


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

I wasnt thinking of AVR in the name. Looking into it it seems more diffucult than thought. Thangs are looking down.

Brian

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Bob Paddock <bob.paddock@...> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, blue_eagle74 <blue_eagle74@...>wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Didnt really want a totly online mag. there are other websites that do
> > that.
> >
> 
> What will you call your AVR Magazine?
> 
> Atmel spends more on lawyers than it does in documentation development,
> so you might find yourself fighting them if you use those three letters.
> 
> On the other hand such a lawsuit might force them to explain
> that AVR is the initials of a person that wrote a thesis paper
> on single clock cycle instruction execution.  If they really
> name A.V.R. then they probably have to pay him big time royalties.
> Someday I'm going to have to dig through my archives and find
> A.V.R.s name, know its in there from about 1996 or so.
> 
> As Elektor seems to have money, enough to have bought
> Circuit Cellar, maybe they would be interested in helping you
> develop your magazine?
> 
> How are you planing to keep this venture going for more than the first issue
> or two?  Quarterly?
> 
> As far as online PDF's, I don't like that the real world magazines,
> Circuit Cellar for example, try to make their PDFs look like the real
> magazines.  The idea is understandable, but they simply don't fit
> our screens well.  Tux magazine published their magazine in
> Landscape Mode, and fit the screen well:
> 
> ftp://ftp.linuxjournal.com/pub/tux/
> 
> Consider the idea for your magazine.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/
> http://www.softwaresafety.net/
> http://www.designer-iii.com/
> http://www.unusualresearch.com/
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

There are many ways and many reasons to format a magazine as they do. It all has to do with the target audience.

Brian

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "ecros_technology" <Yahoo37849@...> wrote:

>
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Bob Paddock <bob.paddock@> wrote:
> 
> > ... I'm going to have to dig
> > through my archives and find
> > A.V.R.s name ...
> 
> AVR = [A]lf-Egil Bogen [V]egard Wollan [R]ISC.  See Wikipedia (and donate!)
> 
> > As far as online PDF's ...
> 
> It would be interesting to see how people are divided on the online versus paper issue.  I'd bet it's the geezers like me that want paper to read on the potty and the youngsters who can still read high resolution screens without spectacles that want online.
> 
> > Tux magazine published their magazine in
> > Landscape Mode, and fit the screen well:
> 
> Oh, don't get me started on widescreen LCDs.  Vertical pixels, that's what I need.  Why do magazines format stuff in columns?  So you can read straight down the page without a lot of side-to-side movement of your eyes, that's why.  And as screens get shorter and wider, software puts more stuff at the top, like Microsoft Word 2007's "ribbon" user interface.  Argh!  Well, at least I snapped up a 1600 by 1200 pixel LCD before the price shot up.
> 
> Graham.
>