Pic programming

C

Cathryn

Guest
Is it possible to adapt the http://www.rentron.com/Myke4.htm parallel
port programmer for the pic16C745?
tia
 
In article <d1p7ts$1a8$1@domitilla.aioe.org>,
Cathryn <cathrynse@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to adapt the http://www.rentron.com/Myke4.htm parallel
port programmer for the pic16C745?
tia
Click to expand...
Possibly. However there are lots of reports of problems with that
particular programmer.

Also if you want to do USB with a PIC, then you may want to consider upgrading
to Microchip 18F USB family of chips. USB 2.0 compliant, with lots more
features.

The 18F4550 is a 40 pin USB powerhouse.

BAJ
 
On 22 Mar 2005 12:39:42 -0500, Byron A Jeff wrote:

In article <d1p7ts$1a8$1@domitilla.aioe.org>,
Cathryn <cathrynse@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to adapt the http://www.rentron.com/Myke4.htm parallel
port programmer for the pic16C745?
tia

Possibly. However there are lots of reports of problems with that
particular programmer.

Also if you want to do USB with a PIC, then you may want to consider upgrading
to Microchip 18F USB family of chips. USB 2.0 compliant, with lots more
features.

The 18F4550 is a 40 pin USB powerhouse.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... what's your opinion on it compared to the ftdichip product?
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
Possibly. However there are lots of reports of problems with that
particular programmer.

Also if you want to do USB with a PIC, then you may want to consider
upgrading
to Microchip 18F USB family of chips. USB 2.0 compliant, with lots more
features.

The 18F4550 is a 40 pin USB powerhouse.
Click to expand...
It seems that some programmers are limited to a very restricted subset of
pics whereas others can do almost all of them. I was just wondering if
the apparent lack of support of some programmers to some pics is simply
a statement "we haven't tried, but it might work", or is there really a
difference in the way the various devices are programmed. I am also
wondering
if one would actually have to change the hardware circuit of the programmer
when working with different pics, or would the difference normally be in
the software which runs the programmer.

tia
 
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:22:18 -0000, Cathryn wrote:

Possibly. However there are lots of reports of problems with that
particular programmer.

Also if you want to do USB with a PIC, then you may want to consider
upgrading
to Microchip 18F USB family of chips. USB 2.0 compliant, with lots more
features.

The 18F4550 is a 40 pin USB powerhouse.

It seems that some programmers are limited to a very restricted subset of
pics whereas others can do almost all of them. I was just wondering if
the apparent lack of support of some programmers to some pics is simply
a statement "we haven't tried, but it might work", or is there really a
difference in the way the various devices are programmed. I am also
wondering
if one would actually have to change the hardware circuit of the programmer
when working with different pics, or would the difference normally be in
the software which runs the programmer.
Click to expand...
IME with ICSP and the 16f' series, the software is lacking. Instead
of using a data file that the user can modify to set parameters,
it's coded in. An example would be IC-Prog which will now handle the
16f648. Before, it only handled the 628. The difference was in the
amount of memory. It wouldn't burn code memory beyond the capacity
of the 628.

I started writing my own code with some help from the open source
programs. Maybe I'll just buy one from uChip and cuss them every
time I have to upgrade. Cussing takes less time.

I can't comment on Atmel, but I haven't seen 20 different
hardware/software combos for that line. Less confusing and possible
the path of least resistance.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
In article <d1rn1t$l61$1@domitilla.aioe.org>,
Cathryn <cathrynse@hotmail.com> wrote:

[SNIPPAGE]

It seems that some programmers are limited to a very restricted subset of
pics whereas others can do almost all of them. I was just wondering if
the apparent lack of support of some programmers to some pics is simply
a statement "we haven't tried, but it might work", or is there really a
difference in the way the various devices are programmed."
Click to expand...

There is a difference in the way that devices are programmed.


I am also wondering
if one would actually have to change the hardware circuit of the programmer
when working with different pics,
Click to expand...
No. The basic hardware configuration is pretty much the same for all
serially programmed PICs.

or would the difference normally be in the software which runs the programmer.
Click to expand...
BINGO! Each family of PICs have very different algorithms for programming.
In short on each you wiggle the same pins. But on each of wiggle the pins in
different ways to program them.

So what happens is that active programmer developers are continually adding
new programming algorithms for new parts, while the less active ones fall
off the side of the road. The latter has happened to programs like picprg and
FPP. Programs like ICProg and Pikdev and hardware programmers such as the
Wisp628 and EasyProg are adding new algorithms all the time.

When I get back into PIC programmer development, I plan to standardize on
PikDev, as Alain is a strong developer. Also he was real smart by separating
the programming engine from UI. So it should be fairly easy to create a
Windows port of the command line programmer, with a GUI interface to follow.

BAJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top