Programming Atmel IC's?

[Lostgallifreyan]

What's the bare minimum of stuff needed to program existing code onto an
Atmel AT89C2051-24PU IC?

One of the filenames ends in .HEX and there's no C or other source so I'm
fairly sure it's all compiled ready. I'm hoping that as with the PicKit2
widget, there's a tiny DOS-window based tool to control the doings, I want to
avoid any large developer environment system, as I run W98 (long story, don't
ask, my reasons are good enough for me), and compatibility is almost certain
to be poor now. The simpler the system I need to program that chip, the
better.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 05:58:59 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net>
wrote:

What's the bare minimum of stuff needed to program existing code onto an
Atmel AT89C2051-24PU IC?

One of the filenames ends in .HEX and there's no C or other source so I'm
fairly sure it's all compiled ready. I'm hoping that as with the PicKit2
widget, there's a tiny DOS-window based tool to control the doings, I want to
avoid any large developer environment system, as I run W98 (long story, don't
ask, my reasons are good enough for me), and compatibility is almost certain
to be poor now. The simpler the system I need to program that chip, the
better.

Well, the datasheet contains the complete programming algorithm, so the
cheapest may be to build your own from the stuff on your workbench. ;-)

Unfortunately, this is an older device that needs parallel programming
and the world has moved on the in-system serial programming in its
various guises.

You'll probably need to dig up one of the "universal programmers." I'm
still hanging on to my old Needham's EMP-11 and I'd recommend that if
they were still in business. Sadly, they're not.

All is not lost! The Microcontroller Shop lists several universal
programmers, some even for reasonable prices. For example
<http://microcontrollershop.com/product_info.php?cPath=92&products_id=3843>
lists the AT89C2051 as a supported device and it's pretty inexpensive,
as these things go. I haven't used it, so no opinion on it other than to
note that the "device supported" list was at least updated this year.

Alternately, as you're still on W98, you might still have a real
parallel port on a slow machine? There is also this one
<http://microcontrollershop.com/product_info.php?cPath=92&products_id=574>
which I have at least heard of. It's more in tune with older hardware.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:e90ha6h5hcdmre60cst51gs29n7nvijjdc@4ax.com:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 05:58:59 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

What's the bare minimum of stuff needed to program existing code onto an
Atmel AT89C2051-24PU IC?

One of the filenames ends in .HEX and there's no C or other source so
I'm fairly sure it's all compiled ready. I'm hoping that as with the
PicKit2 widget, there's a tiny DOS-window based tool to control the
doings, I want to avoid any large developer environment system, as I run
W98 (long story, don't ask, my reasons are good enough for me), and
compatibility is almost certain to be poor now. The simpler the system I
need to program that chip, the better.

Well, the datasheet contains the complete programming algorithm, so the
cheapest may be to build your own from the stuff on your workbench. ;-)

Nice. That could work, it will let me learn the Psion WorkAbout for parallel
port handling while I'm at it too. Apart from the tortured pin-numbering
scheme, all seems straightforward enough.

Unfortunately, this is an older device that needs parallel programming
and the world has moved on the in-system serial programming in its
various guises.

Is true, but at the price those IC#s are going on eBay, they look like a good
choice. I'm using code made for them anyway, it's just a black box to me.
Very nice tidy 20 pin black box too. Cute.

You'll probably need to dig up one of the "universal programmers." I'm
still hanging on to my old Needham's EMP-11 and I'd recommend that if
they were still in business. Sadly, they're not.

All is not lost! The Microcontroller Shop lists several universal
programmers, some even for reasonable prices. For example
http://microcontrollershop.com/product_info.php?cPath=92&products_id=384
3> lists the AT89C2051 as a supported device and it's pretty
inexpensive, as these things go. I haven't used it, so no opinion on it
other than to note that the "device supported" list was at least updated
this year.

Alternately, as you're still on W98, you might still have a real
parallel port on a slow machine? There is also this one
http://microcontrollershop.com/product_info.php?cPath=92&products_id=574
which I have at least heard of. It's more in tune with older hardware.

Those costs are SCARY. I'm saving for solar panels, and that's where that
kind of loot is destined. I can see why the coder is asking 25 bucks for
preprogrammed chips, but by far by best shot is to make this work using a
Psion machine, because I get so much more out than I'll have to put in.

Thanks for the posting.

 

[Cem Uzunoglu]

On 10/03/2010 01:58 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

What's the bare minimum of stuff needed to program existing code onto an
Atmel AT89C2051-24PU IC?
Avrdude should be able to program it, if I remember correctly. There

should be tons of homebrew programmer circuits on the net for that
particular software.

One of the filenames ends in .HEX and there's no C or other source so I'm
fairly sure it's all compiled ready. I'm hoping that as with the PicKit2
Yes. .HEX files are compiled files.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Cem Uzunoglu <jimqode@gmail.no-bots.com> wrote in
news:4cc40786$0$2049$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:

On 10/03/2010 01:58 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
What's the bare minimum of stuff needed to program existing code onto an
Atmel AT89C2051-24PU IC?
Avrdude should be able to program it, if I remember correctly. There
should be tons of homebrew programmer circuits on the net for that
particular software.

One of the filenames ends in .HEX and there's no C or other source so I'm
fairly sure it's all compiled ready. I'm hoping that as with the PicKit2
Yes. .HEX files are compiled files.

Thankyou. Any recommendations for a C compiler that runs on W98 and generates
these hex files? A cheap processor like that has to be worth exploring
deeper. Might even goad me to learn C. (I tried once, then found the teaching
I was meant to trust was based on tools that couldn't get a timer right. I
aborted at chapter 4, thorughly dicouraged, and never went back to C because
lots of other things called for the kind of time C would have taken. But
these IC's are interesting. It might work for me.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:37:18 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net>
wrote:

Thankyou. Any recommendations for a C compiler that runs on W98 and generates
these hex files? A cheap processor like that has to be worth exploring
deeper. Might even goad me to learn C. (I tried once, then found the teaching
I was meant to trust was based on tools that couldn't get a timer right. I
aborted at chapter 4, thorughly dicouraged, and never went back to C because
lots of other things called for the kind of time C would have taken. But
these IC's are interesting. It might work for me.

The Small Device C Compiler (SDCC) http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/ is free
and supports the MCS-51 (a.k.a. 8051) processor family.

I've no clue whether the Windows build will run under Win98 but it
doesn't cost anything to find out. Plus, the sources are available so
compiling with Win98 dependencies wouldn't be out of the question.

Or bite the bullet and set up a small Linux partition. ;-)

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Cem Uzunoglu]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:37:18 -0500, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Thankyou. Any recommendations for a C compiler that runs on W98 and
generates these hex files? A cheap processor like that has to be worth
exploring deeper. Might even goad me to learn C. (I tried once, then
found the teaching I was meant to trust was based on tools that couldn't
get a timer right. I aborted at chapter 4, thorughly dicouraged, and
never went back to C because lots of other things called for the kind of
time C would have taken. But these IC's are interesting. It might work
for me.

I'm not at all familiar with windows only tools. I recommended avrdude
because it is (to my knowledge) crossplatform. You might want to consider
setting up a small partition on your harddrive (or even a 2-4 gb usb
stick) for linux if you want to get your hand on C programming on
microcontrollers. May I suggest ubuntu? It is easy to install (also on a
usb drive) and rich on microcontroller programming tools right on the
repository. So all you have to do is search the ubuntu software center
for the tool you want, click install, and off you go.

Cheers,
Cem

 

[Cem Uzunoglu]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:37:18 -0500, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Thankyou. Any recommendations for a C compiler that runs on W98 and
generates these hex files? A cheap processor like that has to be worth
exploring deeper. Might even goad me to learn C. (I tried once, then
found the teaching I was meant to trust was based on tools that couldn't
get a timer right. I aborted at chapter 4, thorughly dicouraged, and
never went back to C because lots of other things called for the kind of
time C would have taken. But these IC's are interesting. It might work
for me.

I'm not at all familiar with windows only tools. I recommended avrdude
because it is (to my knowledge) crossplatform. You might want to consider
setting up a small partition on your harddrive (or even a 2-4 gb usb
stick) for linux if you want to get your hand on C programming on
microcontrollers. May I suggest ubuntu? It is easy to install (also on a
usb drive) and rich on microcontroller programming tools right on the
repository. So all you have to do is search the ubuntu software center
for the tool you want, click install, and off you go.

Cheers,
Cem

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:t9sac6pprsr5f4f8hu97cls4nsi7tlafah@4ax.com:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:37:18 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

Thankyou. Any recommendations for a C compiler that runs on W98 and
generates these hex files? A cheap processor like that has to be worth
exploring deeper. Might even goad me to learn C. (I tried once, then
found the teaching I was meant to trust was based on tools that couldn't
get a timer right. I aborted at chapter 4, thorughly dicouraged, and
never went back to C because lots of other things called for the kind of
time C would have taken. But these IC's are interesting. It might work
for me.

The Small Device C Compiler (SDCC) http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/ is free
and supports the MCS-51 (a.k.a. 8051) processor family.

I've no clue whether the Windows build will run under Win98 but it
doesn't cost anything to find out. Plus, the sources are available so
compiling with Win98 dependencies wouldn't be out of the question.

Or bite the bullet and set up a small Linux partition. ;-)

Thankyou (and Cem Uzunoglu too). SDCC seems to run on W98, barring a use of
stderr instead of stdout for default reporting, so capture of any console
report longer than 50 lines is all but impossible on W98. Basically it means
that if everything else works, I'll be lucky, but they did compile on a non-
Windows system which is actually good for Windows. It means there's a greater
chance of full Win32 compatibility. If they'd used any recent native Windows
compiler it almost certainly would NOT be fully Win32 compatible. It would
only be WXP which is bad because (if what I've often read is true) after W98
was dropped, Microsoft chose to deprive users of direct hardware accesses,
leaving people fighting with the OS for control.

I never liked Linux enough to stay. I wish Psion had gone on to produce a
major OS for i386... They'd likely have been neither broken, OR actively
resistant to direct hardware accesses, because they favoured that all the
way. If there was ever a compiler for PIC and Atmel MCU's built to run on the
earlier Psion machines, specifcally Series 3, WorkAbout, and Series 5, please
name it if you know of it. And if you got this far, thanks for reading it
all.

 

[JeffM]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
[...]a C compiler that runs on W98[...]

Rich Webb wrote:
[...]Or bite the bullet and set up a small Linux partition. ;-)


Lostgallifreyan wrote:
[...]I never liked Linux enough to stay[...]

Now I'm wondering if you had performance problems

on a Win98-era box because of too bulky a distro.
**This** distro is rapidly becoming legendary
for how well it works--especially on old anemic iron.
http://google.com/search?q=antiX+MEPIS+64MB+128MB&hl=all

Forums at
http://google.com/search?q=site:antix.freeforums.org+%22+Posted-*-*-*-2010%22&num=100&hl=all
and
http://google.com/search?q=site:mepislovers.org/forums+antiX+%22+10-*-2010%22+-inurl:searchid+-inurl:forumdisplay&num=100&hl=all

http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/

If a lack of horsepower is *not* your issue,

both of these contain SDCC out of the box:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Introducing-Ubuntu-Electronics-Remix-9-10-132890.shtml
http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FEL/download.html

....and there's nothing that says that if you think
a particular Linux desktop environment / window manager sucks
that you can't get/install/have another that you like better
--even multiple DEs/WMs, if you so desire.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in
news:8366c631-7599-44a6-b360-fce090e10dfe@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
[...]a C compiler that runs on W98[...]

Rich Webb wrote:
[...]Or bite the bullet and set up a small Linux partition. ;-)


Lostgallifreyan wrote:
[...]I never liked Linux enough to stay[...]

Now I'm wondering if you had performance problems
on a Win98-era box because of too bulky a distro.
**This** distro is rapidly becoming legendary
for how well it works--especially on old anemic iron.
http://google.com/search?q=antiX+MEPIS+64MB+128MB&hl=all

I like it: 'old anemic iron' Mine's not that bad, I use Mini-ITX 1.2 GHz
boards. I'm fussy though, once I make my home in a system I settle in deeply,
and few systems work that way for me. W9X is one, Psion Organisers and
WorkAbout machines are another... With Linux (and all *nix based OS's), I
found my ideas of best file placement always conflict with the file system
design. I like a program's files to live in one directory. DOS worked that
way, mostly, Windows inherited it. Unix and BSD and Linux like to place files
according to how they'll be used, and I found that trying to make it do
things it doesn't like was counterproductive. So I stayed with the OS that
most often did things the way I wanted them.

That small Linux is interesting though, if it's small enough, I can treat it
an an entirely self-contained entity in its own right. Ideally I'd like to
use such a variant inside Windows, a kind of inverse of what Wine does.
I'm not sure than anyone ever did that for W9X though.

Forums at
http://google.com/search?q=site:antix.freeforums.org+%22+Posted-*-*-*-201
0%22&num=100&hl=all and
http://google.com/search?q=site:mepislovers.org/forums+antiX+%22+10-*-201
0%22+-inurl:searchid+-inurl:forumdisplay&num=100&hl=all

The Small Device C Compiler[...]http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/

If a lack of horsepower is *not* your issue,
both of these contain SDCC out of the box:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Introducing-Ubuntu-Electronics-Remix-9-10-
132890.shtml http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FEL/download.html

...and there's nothing that says that if you think
a particular Linux desktop environment / window manager sucks
that you can't get/install/have another that you like better
--even multiple DEs/WMs, if you so desire.

I came across QVWM (?) once. W95 shell emulator. I'm not sure whether things
changed much but when I tried it I quickly found that the resemblance was not
deep. W95's GUI shell is actually rather awesome. I still use it now, on
W98, instead of the bloated and virtually broken W98 and IE shell we were
meant to use on that OS. (98-Lite is a very nice thing for W98).

I guess I just don't want to change. It took so much work to get this far, I
could die before I ever get that comfortable with another system on this
scale. All I really need to do is keep it going for as long as I can keep
going. And a lean, fast small OS like a stripped down W98 is a LOT of fun on
a fast machine. All that new speed gets to process stuff I want to do,
instead of run a bigger, slower, newer OS. I tried WXP several times, and
always ended up rejecting it. Linux seems like even harder work to me..

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in
news:036e247b-3384-4f61-997b-f5464ef7ab67@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Ideally I'd like to use such a variant inside Windows,

...so that your outward-facing wall is Windoze. 8-(
The logic seems inverted.

It is, but logic does that. It's the assumptions it's found on that matter.
I wouldn't trust W98 long term unattended online, but it's behind a secure
router (separate from the ISP's modem) and an efficient software
firewall/antitrojan, never left on unattended for long, and rarely at that.
It also has several core parts lacking, networking is as minimal as possible,
most standard exploits aren't there, whole chunks of standard W98
arrangements aren't there. Even if someone got in, they might spend so long
just looking around trying to figure out where stuff is, that they won't do
much before I do. For most ports it would be hard to spot on the net even if
it wasn't behind the router. I have more risk of the infamous BSOD, except
that mine's green on black now...

a kind of inverse of what Wine does.
I'm not sure than anyone ever did that for W9X though.

Even CygWin has dropped Win9x support.

Ah well, all good things... But I know it happens. The best tools I have, I
don't force upgrade anyway, the whole machine IS the tool. Its parts work
well together now, and that's all I ask of it. It's already gone well beyond
standard capability, with a bit of help from Rudolph Loew's 48 bit LBA driver
patch and a few other things added, and a lot of unwanted stuff removed.

Here's one of the more inclusive pages about these things:
http://google.com/search?q=cache:2X1tiapl7N8J:tech.slashdot.org/article.p
l?sid=08/05/19/2223258+*-*.*.*.*.*.*.*-typhoonius+andlinux+Cygwin's+rss+r
ss+instead.of+rss+rss+phatlinux+*-*-*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-*-*.*-firewire.*-*-*-
*-*+*.*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-availability-*-*+coLinux+*-Windows-port+rss+rss
+stuffs-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*.*-*+rss+rss+Wubi+no.no#23469172
http://tinyurl.com/Running-Linux-under-Windoze
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/19/2223258#23469172

...and as these things usually mention,
an underlying OS that is always running as root is a horrible idea.
http://colinux.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#Q11._Is_it_possible_to_run_coLinux_unde
r_98.2FME.3F

I like the idea. Ok, perverse, I know, but it's the same argument as
locking a toolbox. So long as I keep it with me, or secured in a room or
vehicle, I don't want to encumber my own access with a lock on the box too.

I haven't investigated in depth
but I'm pretty sure they all need an NT base.

I came across QVWM (?) once. W95 shell emulator.

This is the one I usually think of in that context:
http://google.com/search?q=FVWM95

Yep, that's thw one. I seem to have a knack of misremembering its name.

the resemblance was not deep.

Like the old boy says: If you need Windoze, get Windoze.

Precisely. Totally works for me.

W95's GUI shell is actually rather awesome.

Never owned that. I jumped from DOS 6 to Win98SE.

Did it hurt? My transition was an odd one. I'd had a DOS box with a
green/orange/white EGA screen running WordStar, and it died in a cupboard
some time after I gave up on it because then, that was all I knew to do with
it.. (At the time I didn't know enough to realise the battery had left the
CMOS memory scrambled rather than dead, so it didn' wake up as new). Next,
when I realised a decent computer cost something I could afford, was a 486
second hand with W31 on it. Vile, someone had left the install in a messy
state, with broken irremovabkle drivers. But it had a nice SVGA screen. I
borrowed a W95 disk and started fresh, and it was awesome. It was the single
most liberating system I'd ever encountered, and the most beautiful. M$ went
downhill all the way since, I think. >

(98-Lite is a very nice thing for W98).

...if you are wise enough to not use any apps
which are hard-coded to call Internet Exploder to render HTML
e.g. nuking IE cripples the Win98 Help system.

Well, there are two subsets worth having, one is a small and removable hack
involving the 'cryptographic components' which allow installation of DirectX
v9c. After which I remove those components. There is also a minimum core for
compiled HTML files, (CHM), that W98-Lite takes care of. I could opt to leave
it out, but I find it useful, those files are a lot nicer to use as
references (such as wxWidgets refs) than PDF or the native help files. All
the real bulk of IE, and the 'active desktop' horripilations, are totally
gone.

Most programs I run only rely on the basic C, C++, and at worst, MFC support.
I don't touch Java, .net, or visual basic. Given the quality of so many
programs I collected over the uyears, I don't have to. If it's not clean, if
it does anything it wants to do without clear reason, it's out, and I find
another. I watch the registry like a hawk every time I test stuff.

I guess I just don't want to change.

I wish there was more honesty like that
from the trolls who post in comp.os.linux.advocacy.

Yep, I never attack anyone's choice of OS, I stay strictly in defence of my
own choices. I think W9X is worthy of defence. I just wish that M$ would
release the source and let lots of people get on with it. Whether it would
have a noble renaissance if this happened is anyone's guess though.

Got to stop there. This is fun but I don't want to overdo it. I think I
already just did that..

 

[JeffM]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

I stayed with the OS
that most often did things the way I wanted them.

Horses for courses.

That small Linux is interesting though,

Ain't it though?

an entirely self-contained entity in its own right.

There you go.

Ideally I'd like to use such a variant inside Windows,

....so that your outward-facing wall is Windoze. 8-(

The logic seems inverted.

a kind of inverse of what Wine does.
I'm not sure than anyone ever did that for W9X though.

Even CygWin has dropped Win9x support.

Here's one of the more inclusive pages about these things:
http://google.com/search?q=cache:2X1tiapl7N8J:tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/19/2223258+*-*.*.*.*.*.*.*-typhoonius+andlinux+Cygwin's+rss+rss+instead.of+rss+rss+phatlinux+*-*-*-*-*-*.*-*-*-*-*-*.*-firewire.*-*-*-*-*+*.*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-availability-*-*+coLinux+*-Windows-port+rss+rss+stuffs-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*.*-*+rss+rss+Wubi+no.no#23469172
http://tinyurl.com/Running-Linux-under-Windoze
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/19/2223258#23469172

....and as these things usually mention,
an underlying OS that is always running as root is a horrible idea.
http://colinux.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#Q11._Is_it_possible_to_run_coLinux_under_98.2FME.3F

I haven't investigated in depth
but I'm pretty sure they all need an NT base.

I came across QVWM (?) once. W95 shell emulator.

This is the one I usually think of in that context:

http://google.com/search?q=FVWM95

the resemblance was not deep.

Like the old boy says: If you need Windoze, get Windoze.

W95's GUI shell is actually rather awesome.

Never owned that. I jumped from DOS 6 to Win98SE.

(98-Lite is a very nice thing for W98).

...if you are wise enough to not use any apps

which are hard-coded to call Internet Exploder to render HTML
e.g. nuking IE cripples the Win98 Help system.

I guess I just don't want to change.

I wish there was more honesty like that

from the trolls who post in comp.os.linux.advocacy.