AVR-Chat

>>> <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com> 20/12/2004 11:22:44 pm >>>
>Hello everyone,
>I have SOME experience with the PIC line, but I was told that AVR is
>way better.  I have absolutely no experience with AVR's, so I was
>hoping someone could help guide me.  What do I need to get, etc, etc.
> I look forward to learning a lot from all of you, and I hope to
contribute when I am knowledgable enough to.
>Thank you,
>Shamoon

Regardless of what the AVR Zealots think, the AVR's are not "WAY"
better than the PICs, and vice-versa. PICs are more popular than AVRs,
it's just that AVR people are more fanatical, kind of like Linux vs
Microsoft.
If you have some experience with the PICs, why don't you just stay with
the PICs? No point confusing yourself by learning a new architecture
when you are just starting. Once you have a fair amount of experience
with micros then it's much easier (almost trival) to move between
platforms, especially if you use a high level language like C.

Dave :)



**********************

The information contained in this email is intended for the named recipient(s) only, it may also be privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon it. No warranties or assurances are made in relation to the safety and content of this email and any attachments. No liability is accepted for any consequences arising from it. Any comments contained within this email may or may not be solely the senders and not those of Sercel Australia Pty Ltd. Therefore Sercel Australia Pty Ltd will accept no responsibility or liability for any such comments and/or attachments.

**********************

David Jones wrote:
>>>><AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com> 20/12/2004 11:22:44 pm >>>
>>
>>Hello everyone,
>>I have SOME experience with the PIC line, but I was told that AVR is
>>way better.  I have absolutely no experience with AVR's, so I was
>>hoping someone could help guide me.  What do I need to get, etc, etc.
>>I look forward to learning a lot from all of you, and I hope to
> 
> contribute when I am knowledgable enough to.
> 
>>Thank you,
>>Shamoon
> 
> 
> Regardless of what the AVR Zealots think, the AVR's are not "WAY"
> better than the PICs,

But they are, or else there would have been a gcc port for pics.
Pics have a few extra useful variations tho.

 > and vice-versa. PICs are more popular than AVRs,
> it's just that AVR people are more fanatical, kind of like Linux vs
> Microsoft.
> If you have some experience with the PICs, why don't you just stay with
> the PICs? No point confusing yourself by learning a new architecture
> when you are just starting.

Because its much easier to get an uncrippled C compiler and other tools free.
Avrs are easier for stack intensive things such as rtos etc. 32 registers
makes maths (especially float) operations *much* faster.

 > Once you have a fair amount of experience
> with micros then it's much easier (almost trival) to move between
> platforms, especially if you use a high level language like C.
> 
> Dave :)
> 
>

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> wrote:
> > Regardless of what the AVR Zealots think, the AVR's are not "WAY"
> > better than the PICs,
> 
> But they are, or else there would have been a gcc port for pics.

Rubbish.
Just because something has a gcc port doesn't make it "better", it 
just means there was some keen zealot willing to take on the job.
I would hazard a guess the reason there is no gcc port for the PIC 
is that it's harder to write one, and no one has yet stepped up to 
the plate.

> Pics have a few extra useful variations tho.

Last I looked, PICs out-sold AVR by a large margin, therefore the 
PICs are more "popular" than AVR. I am willing to be corrected 
though.
If the OP is looking to learn micros to get into the job market for 
instance, then PICs might actually be a better option.
 
> Because its much easier to get an uncrippled C compiler and other 
tools free.

MPLAB is free, so are many other tools.
You can build your own programmer for almost nothing.
Many C Compilers are available, some reasonably priced, some mega 
expensive, just like the AVR. PICC Lite is freeware and supports 
several devices, perfect for the beginner.
But yeah, maybe the AVR has a slight edge in lower cost C compilers. 
Might be a factor for a beginner, might not.

> Avrs are easier for stack intensive things such as rtos etc. 32 
registers
> makes maths (especially float) operations *much* faster.

Totally irrelevent for the beginner or even intermediate user.

If you want fast floating point math there are much better platforms 
than trying to bleed every last cycle out of an 8 bit micro.

Any good designer will choose (and recommend) the micro which is 
most suited to the job, not stick to one type religiously.

The OP was given biased advice. The AVRs are not better than PICs, 
or vice versa. Depends entirely on a whole host of factors.

Dave :)

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "David Jones" <david.jones@s...> 
wrote:

> Regardless of what the AVR
> Zealots think, the AVR's
> are not "WAY" better than
> the PICs, and vice-versa.

I have to side with David here. Nothing is "WAY" better than anything 
else until you take all your particular needs and biases into 
account. If there is anything specific you don't like about the PIC, 
ask here about that aspect of the AVR before spending money and 
effort on a switch.

I came to AVR from the Z8 Encore! with a strong anti-ZiLOG sentiment 
after wasting a lot of time and effort on third-party support for 
this MCU. After a while I had to admit that there are ways in which 
even the Z8 Encore! is superior to the AVR (though I would never make 
another product with one).

Graham.

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

From: Dave VanHorn
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com ; AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] AVR vs. PIC ( was Re: Digest Number 878)


At 10:10 AM 12/21/2004, Graham Davies wrote:



>--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "David Jones" <david.jones@s...>
>wrote:
>
> > Regardless of what the AVR
> > Zealots think, the AVR's
> > are not "WAY" better than
> > the PICs, and vice-versa.
>
>I have to side with David here. Nothing is "WAY" better than anything
>else until you take all your particular needs and biases into
>account. If there is anything specific you don't like about the PIC,
>ask here about that aspect of the AVR before spending money and
>effort on a switch.

It's enough of a difference for me that I won't use a PIC unless forced to.

>I came to AVR from the Z8 Encore! with a strong anti-ZiLOG sentiment
>after wasting a lot of time and effort on third-party support for
>this MCU. After a while I had to admit that there are ways in which
>even the Z8 Encore! is superior to the AVR (though I would never make
>another product with one).

I always liked the Z8, but not the company that produced it.
Once, Zilog was on top of the world, and tools for their Z-80 products were
cheap, good, and wonderful..  On the Z8 side though, tools are buggy,
support minimal to non-existent.

I don't know on the encore, but the original Z8 also ran at Xtal/12(!)
which meant that you got 1 mips at 12 MHz.  On the plus side, all
instructions work with all registers, all registers are ram, and any pair
is a pointer, if you want to use it that way.

I used to like the Z8 and used it a lot; primarily because there was free 
CP/M cross-assembler available for them (a friend of mine wrote it), and the 
architecture was very nice. I put two of them on a transputer board I 
designed and used them as UARTs. I experimented with the CMOS version at low 
supply voltages, and was rather surprised to find that I could get a system 
running at under 1.5V.

Leon

At 10:10 AM 12/21/2004, Graham Davies wrote:



>--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "David Jones" <david.jones@s...>
>wrote:
>
> > Regardless of what the AVR
> > Zealots think, the AVR's
> > are not "WAY" better than
> > the PICs, and vice-versa.
>
>I have to side with David here. Nothing is "WAY" better than anything
>else until you take all your particular needs and biases into
>account. If there is anything specific you don't like about the PIC,
>ask here about that aspect of the AVR before spending money and
>effort on a switch.

It's enough of a difference for me that I won't use a PIC unless forced to.

>I came to AVR from the Z8 Encore! with a strong anti-ZiLOG sentiment
>after wasting a lot of time and effort on third-party support for
>this MCU. After a while I had to admit that there are ways in which
>even the Z8 Encore! is superior to the AVR (though I would never make
>another product with one).

I always liked the Z8, but not the company that produced it.
Once, Zilog was on top of the world, and tools for their Z-80 products were 
cheap, good, and wonderful..  On the Z8 side though, tools are buggy, 
support minimal to non-existent.

I don't know on the encore, but the original Z8 also ran at Xtal/12(!) 
which meant that you got 1 mips at 12 MHz.  On the plus side, all 
instructions work with all registers, all registers are ram, and any pair 
is a pointer, if you want to use it that way.

Still, I'll take the AVR, happily.