"PIC"

John Fields · Mar 4, 2005

ISTM that, often, when a microcontroller seems to be the logical
choice for a controller, a "PIC" is chosen as the device of choice
because the development tools are largely free.

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?

--
John Fields

j.b. miller · Mar 4, 2005

Well....it all depends...IF the same guy programs the SAME code into all the
micros and they ALL have same instruction speeds,loads,etc. then PICs are
very low power. The TI MSP chips are supposed to be better, but to me it's a
moot point. ANY of them can/will outlive the battery's 'shelf life' if put
to sleep and god programming methods are used.

jay

Joerg · Mar 5, 2005

Hello John,

ISTM that, often, when a microcontroller seems to be the logical
choice for a controller, a "PIC" is chosen as the device of choice
because the development tools are largely free.

Tool costs are usually not a big factor unless they would be
outrageously high. Any serious firmware engineer will have the proper
tool set in the same way that we have our CAD tools. I found that we
defaulted more to the 8051 family, i.e. the 89C51 versions for low power
or noise critical apps. One reason was the abundance of available
firmware specialists in that family. Also, customers felt more
comfortable with this family because they already knew it. To a degree
this old core is still an industry standard and some companies such as
Nordic have even come out with RF chips that feature an embedded 8051 core.

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?

Jay has a point. It depends on the capabilities of the programmer but
also the application. The MSP430 could lead the pack here because it can
restart its digitally controlled oscillator from sleep mode in under
10usec. But that only pays off if you can afford a reasonably low
active/sleep duty cycle.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Pooh Bear · Mar 5, 2005

John Fields wrote:

ISTM that, often, when a microcontroller seems to be the logical
choice for a controller, a "PIC" is chosen as the device of choice
because the development tools are largely free.

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?

PICs are single source. You might prefer an 8051 derivative. Some of
these are capable of very low power these days ( and low voltage ) and
have always had various power saving modes.

It's certainly my microcontroller of choice.

What's your power budget anyway ?

Graham

Spehro Pefhany · Mar 5, 2005

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:29:41 -0600, the renowned John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

ISTM that, often, when a microcontroller seems to be the logical
choice for a controller, a "PIC" is chosen as the device of choice
because the development tools are largely free.

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?

Hi, John:-

There are a lot of variables- some of the on-chip PIC peripherals are
not very low power, but they generally can be turned off. They have a
"nanowatt" series that have some optimizations. Speaking as a factory
authorized PIC consultant, I'd recommend you look at them. ;-)

However, as myself, a confirmed microcontroller agnostic, I'd say that
they may not be the best possible solution in any given case. Another
series you should look at is TI's MSP430 series, technically 16-bit,
but they are more like an 8-bit processor in cost. Billed as ultra-low
power and with lots of peripherals for such applications like LCD
drivers. They also are pretty good at crunching numbers at full speed
(16x16 hardware multiplier on some). No 5V or through-hole flash
parts, though, IIRC.

The lowest power is probably from mask-programmed (50K MOQ)
specialized chips from outfits that specialize in such devices, as
you'd find in some high-end timepieces.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Rock · Mar 5, 2005

Why I'm a Picoholic!

Yes, PICs are single source, but I know of no company that has a better
record of making sure that there is stock out there. None of my clients
has had any problems getting PICs for the projects I've designed for
them.

Practical 8051's for use in a product as integrated microconrollers are
not second sourced anyway are they? I mean we are way beyond using the
stock original Intel clone parts! So, these are single source parts
too. Not that this matters because of my fist point.

Consider that Microchip offers hundreds of different versions of these
chips, and despite all that variety they all have common elements that
make it easy to go to a new version.

I don't think Microchip has ever discontinued a part either. The only
other company I can think of with this kind of record is Xilinx, and
bravo to both of them. I have designed many parts into products that
have become obsolete, it gives me peace of mind to know that Microchip
is not apt to do that.

Also, consider that Microchip is actually making money in this
business. It is far more likely that a company that is loosing money
will abandon the business in the future.

One more bit of iceing on the cake, no single product line at present
has more people familiar with it, so in the event a client of mine
needs some help and I can't do it, what better part could I give them
to allow another to do the work?

I think you can prob. find a PIC to do any task suited to an 8 bit
microcontroller, from low power, to directly driving LCD displays, to
USBs. The only thing they don't seem to have a line of super analog
chip like the cygnal chips, except for the PIC1400, and that is not yet
in flash technology.

Luhan Monat · Mar 5, 2005

Rock wrote:

Why I'm a Picoholic!

Yes, PICs are single source, but I know of no company that has a better
record of making sure that there is stock out there. None of my clients
has had any problems getting PICs for the projects I've designed for
them.

Practical 8051's for use in a product as integrated microconrollers are
not second sourced anyway are they? I mean we are way beyond using the
stock original Intel clone parts! So, these are single source parts
too. Not that this matters because of my fist point.

Consider that Microchip offers hundreds of different versions of these
chips, and despite all that variety they all have common elements that
make it easy to go to a new version.

I don't think Microchip has ever discontinued a part either. The only
other company I can think of with this kind of record is Xilinx, and
bravo to both of them. I have designed many parts into products that
have become obsolete, it gives me peace of mind to know that Microchip
is not apt to do that.

Also, consider that Microchip is actually making money in this
business. It is far more likely that a company that is loosing money
will abandon the business in the future.

One more bit of iceing on the cake, no single product line at present
has more people familiar with it, so in the event a client of mine
needs some help and I can't do it, what better part could I give them
to allow another to do the work?

I think you can prob. find a PIC to do any task suited to an 8 bit
microcontroller, from low power, to directly driving LCD displays, to
USBs. The only thing they don't seem to have a line of super analog
chip like the cygnal chips, except for the PIC1400, and that is not yet
in flash technology.

Hi,

I agree most emphatically, after desinging with Z80's for single board
controllers, and then with the 8048/51 series, the PIC series blew me
away. Small size, low power, lots of built in periferals, and really,
really cheap.

My area is embedded controllers. One of my comercial products uses up
to 19 PIC's networked together to control a rather complex machine.

As far as second sourcing, this only protects against corporate failure
of the supplier, not against running out of parts. When the total
demand for any part exceeds the total supply, it does not matter how
many sources there are - your screwed.

--
Luhan Monat (luhanis 'at' yahoo 'dot' com)
"The future is not what it used to be..."
http://members.cox.net/berniekm

Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo · Mar 5, 2005

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?

Without much more information the only reasonable answer is "maybe".

Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------
http://www.voti.nl
Webshop for PICs and other electronics
http://www.voti.nl/hvu
Teacher electronics and informatics

Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo · Mar 5, 2005

PICs are single source. You might prefer an 8051 derivative.

Which of the 8051 derivates with reasonable specs (let's say flash +
eeprom + ram + A/D + some timers) are true multiple-sourced in the
sense that the same chip is available from multiple vendors?

BTW there are some PICs from different (Chinese) sources.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------
http://www.voti.nl
Webshop for PICs and other electronics
http://www.voti.nl/hvu
Teacher electronics and informatics

Roger Hamlett · Mar 5, 2005

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cguh21924meo9t13bt7qf2ametrmd7bb1r@4ax.com...

ISTM that, often, when a microcontroller seems to be the logical
choice for a controller, a "PIC" is chosen as the device of choice
because the development tools are largely free.

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?
Not than 'any other', but you can get the figures astonishingly low. It is

usually limited by other things (the quiescent consumption of other parts
etc.). With careful design, the power levels can really be low. I have a
couple of data logger systems, which sleep, and grab a reading at
intervals. They run for typically two or three years on a single 3v
lithium coin cell. Some of the newer 'nanowatt' chips, have more
optimisations to help reduce consumption. They are also cheap, and readily
available. Some of the ultra low power devices from other manufacturers,
suffer from being hard to source. You can also reckon, that with the shear
number of PICs in use, that if MicroChip disappeared, somebody else would
be offering a 'clone' pretty fast...

Best Wishes

Best Wishes

Terry Given · Mar 5, 2005

Luhan Monat wrote:

Rock wrote:

Why I'm a Picoholic!

Yes, PICs are single source, but I know of no company that has a better
record of making sure that there is stock out there. None of my clients
has had any problems getting PICs for the projects I've designed for
them.

Practical 8051's for use in a product as integrated microconrollers are
not second sourced anyway are they? I mean we are way beyond using the
stock original Intel clone parts! So, these are single source parts
too. Not that this matters because of my fist point.

Consider that Microchip offers hundreds of different versions of these
chips, and despite all that variety they all have common elements that
make it easy to go to a new version.

I don't think Microchip has ever discontinued a part either. The only
other company I can think of with this kind of record is Xilinx, and
bravo to both of them. I have designed many parts into products that
have become obsolete, it gives me peace of mind to know that Microchip
is not apt to do that.

Also, consider that Microchip is actually making money in this
business. It is far more likely that a company that is loosing money
will abandon the business in the future.

One more bit of iceing on the cake, no single product line at present
has more people familiar with it, so in the event a client of mine
needs some help and I can't do it, what better part could I give them
to allow another to do the work?

I think you can prob. find a PIC to do any task suited to an 8 bit
microcontroller, from low power, to directly driving LCD displays, to
USBs. The only thing they don't seem to have a line of super analog
chip like the cygnal chips, except for the PIC1400, and that is not yet
in flash technology.

Hi,

I agree most emphatically, after desinging with Z80's for single board
controllers, and then with the 8048/51 series, the PIC series blew me
away. Small size, low power, lots of built in periferals, and really,
really cheap.

My area is embedded controllers. One of my comercial products uses up
to 19 PIC's networked together to control a rather complex machine.

As far as second sourcing, this only protects against corporate failure
of the supplier, not against running out of parts. When the total
demand for any part exceeds the total supply, it does not matter how
many sources there are - your screwed.

Indeed. Anyone try buying FLASH in 1995/1996? remember the great resin
shortage? Besides, how many micros truly have second sources?

Cheers
Terry

robin.pain@tesco.net · Mar 5, 2005

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<cguh21924meo9t13bt7qf2ametrmd7bb1r@4ax.com>...

ISTM that, often, when a microcontroller seems to be the logical
choice for a controller, a "PIC" is chosen as the device of choice
because the development tools are largely free.

Disregarding the development costs, will a PIC dissipate less power
over the lifetime of the product than another microcontroller?

They are truly elegant.

We reprogram insitu with the ~Ł100 "ICD2" (and the free MPLAB).

I've never seen any field failures yet.

Cheers
Robin

xray · Mar 6, 2005

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
<invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

mike · Mar 6, 2005

xray wrote:

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

I find the guilt, shame, and denial functions particularly useful
because they can be used with any number of arguments of any data type.
I never have to debug programs. I have faith that they work just fine.
mike

--
Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
with links. Delete this sig when replying.
..
Wanted, PCMCIA SCSI Card for HP m820 CDRW.
FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
Wanted, 12.1" LCD for Gateway Solo 5300. Samsung LT121SU-121
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

Jim Thompson · Mar 6, 2005

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:06:15 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

xray wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

I find the guilt, shame, and denial functions particularly useful
because they can be used with any number of arguments of any data type.
I never have to debug programs. I have faith that they work just fine.
mike

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Terry Given · Mar 6, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:06:15 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

xray wrote:

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

I find the guilt, shame, and denial functions particularly useful
because they can be used with any number of arguments of any data type.
I never have to debug programs. I have faith that they work just fine.
mike

Bwahahahaha! ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

Indeed. Couldnt have put it better myself.

Cheers
Terry

Rich Grise · Mar 6, 2005

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:06:15 -0800, mike wrote:

xray wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

I find the guilt, shame, and denial functions particularly useful
because they can be used with any number of arguments of any data type.
I never have to debug programs. I have faith that they work just fine.
mike

Let him who is without seg fault cast the first type.

Cheers!
Rich

xray · Mar 7, 2005

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:06:15 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

xray wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

I find the guilt, shame, and denial functions particularly useful
because they can be used with any number of arguments of any data type.
I never have to debug programs. I have faith that they work just fine.
mike

That's just stuff in the current popular user interfaces isn't it?

Rich The Philosophizer · Mar 7, 2005

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:32:43 +0000, xray wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:06:15 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

xray wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "j.b. miller"
invalidjbmiller@cogeco.ca> wrote:

god programming methods

Evolves to meet unexpected changes in requirements without needing
direct interaction by the programmer?

I find the guilt, shame, and denial functions particularly useful
because they can be used with any number of arguments of any data type.
I never have to debug programs. I have faith that they work just fine.
mike

That's just stuff in the current popular user interfaces isn't it?

Yeah - and for all of this long time, they've been calling the pain and
suffering "a feature".

Good Luck!
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

"PIC"

John Fields

Guest

j.b. miller

Guest

Joerg

Guest

Pooh Bear

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Rock

Guest

Luhan Monat

Guest

Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo

Guest

Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo

Guest

Roger Hamlett

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

robin.pain@tesco.net

Guest

xray

Guest

mike

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

xray

Guest

Rich The Philosophizer

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor