Question about pic16f676

[R. Steve Walz]

Byron A Jeff wrote:

In article <9JHkb.4043$S52.1213@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Rich Grise <spamdump@aol.com> wrote:
-C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the first 4
-responses are "Use a PIC".

Because given the requirement, a microcontroller of some type makes sense.
The OP simply declared no PICs because of lack of exposure.

But a PIC is the ultimate jellybean part. So as I posted somewhere else
in this thread, the OP can leverage what they learn on this project into
a bunch of future projects.

-
-Doing it with BCD counters (like 7490) and decoders (like 7447) is
-almost trivial. I'd be asking, what's the signal source? Pulse train?
-For that, just count pulses over some known interval. Analog voltage
-level? ADC and bin/bcd translator (unless somebody makes a 3-digit
-BCD ADC. Hmm ... "Digital voltmeter" springs to mind...)

So you've already thrown like 10 discrete IC's (counters, decoders, ADC,
pulse train, bin/bcd translator) at the problem. A good modern uC has all
of that and more in a single package.

-
-If you really want to get fancy-schmancy, I saw some guy design
-a circuit using just counters, latches, and some pulse trains to
-actually count pulse intervals, then digitally divide a time base
-by the result to give a readout in frequency. I still don't
-understand the circuit, but it's definitely doable.

Again the point. Especially when the OP has to build multiple units, why
add complexity to the point of not understanding?

Beginners need to learn that the best way to succeed is to get the hardware
simple and stable. While I understand that folks like Ciarcia prefer solder
as their programming language, the bottom line is that simple/compact hardware
plus software is generally the path to success.

BAJ
---------------

Success perhaps, but a limited form of it without a grounding in the
fundamentals. You're pretending that the PIC is some "Royal Road"
to bypass real learning and achieve success, and while one might
catch such a wave on the crest and make money, later they have to
backtrack and go back and REALLY learn it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <3F95BED8.7844@armory.com>,
R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
-Anthony Fremont wrote:
->
-> R. Steve Walz wrote:
-> > Rich Grise wrote:
-> >>

-> Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
-> craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
---------------------
-I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do voltage
-level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point, even that has its
-uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that he wanted primarily
-to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

I respectfully disagree Steve. The OP made it clear that he needed to build 4
of these tools and that he didn't want to talk about microcontrollers solely
because he wasn't familiar with them.

So despite his protestations, we collectively should present the best options
for success.

-
-
-> If you don't like micros, no
-> problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions and
-> attempt to force them upon the world.
---------------------------
-You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me you
-look quite stupid.

I have to admit Rich that you do seem quite silly here. Because if you've been
hanging around Steve for the last 10 years or so you would know that Steve
actaully does know everything about electronics.

BAJ

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Lord Garth wrote:

Personally, I would use whatever micro filled the bill. Simply
realize that a statement like "Use a PIC" does nothing to solve a
problem.

Well...I agree with that....but I'm not the one that made that
particular comment. I try not to just say abrupt things like that when
suggesting that someone learn to use micros. I try to motivate them
with the promise of how much more they'll be able to do when they make
the effort to use them. I just get really preterbed by some people's
attitudes about micros.

If a PIC can do the job and you're so inclined, draw and post the
schematic and include the necessary source code.

I probably would, but I'm dinking with ultrasonic ranging right now.
;-) I may go back and review his requirements and offer up a decent
suggestion for him though. I would probably be willing to help him
debug his code if he were so inclined to write some. What I wouldn't
want to do is do the whole project for him, and that's what I'd be doing
if I drew a plug-n-play schematic and wrote/debugged all the code.

A while back I did write the code for someones project and give it to
them, all they had to do was get a PIC and program it. I don't think
they ever tried.

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

michael

 

[Anthony Fremont]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the first 4
responses are "Use a PIC".
-------------
That's because the people who tout PICs are actually digitally
untrained and don't grasp simple digital design basics with the
classic digital building-blocks, and they hide their ignorance
behind "PICs", when that's actually all they know how to use.

Really? That sounds allot like the Rube Goldbergs that refuse to use
the proper device (in this case a micro) and instead set about
building a ridiculous contraption that costs >20 times as much as
the micro solution.
-------------------------------
He asked how to do it, he didn't say he had to. He certainly didn't
want to produce something for sale, so what's your beef?

"they hide their ignorance behind "PICs" " I guess that's where the beef
is.

You'd think that the "digitally trained" would have the
ability to work with a micro, after all it's mostly a collection of
logic gates.
----------------
Do you resent his newbie status THAT BADLY?? Why? This is s.e.basics!!
Or are you stupid enough to imagine that *I'm* some newbie, and if
so, you REALLY don't know ME!!

Newbie status, moi? Hardly Maybe new to this group I guess, but
certainly not new to the hobby.

Or are they really just hiding their own ignorance of
complex digital logic by slamming micros every time they are
mentioned?
------------------------------------
You're a young foolish one. You have NO idea who *I* am, do you?

No, but from that comment I'm guessing your some kind of god?

I just hate to see newbies dissed for wanting to know how we got
here, and just being handed a "cure-all" and being told to shut up.

Please show me where I did anything like that. It happens that the OP's
project is a glove fit for a micro, but I guess you know that already.
What with being a legend and all.

I've used lots of uP's and uC's, from Z80's and 8085's to 8051 cores,
and even Z8's and 6502's once upon a time, BUT!: I've also often
designed a permanent solution for a dedicated problem many hundreds
of times with discrete SSI and MSI logic, and I'd hate to think that
people will stop knowing what the perfect static/dynamic solution to
a problem is, without just emulating a solution with a processor that
just happens to run fast enough so you can't tell that it is fudging.

Someone should tell all those DSP doofs that, they're wasting allot of
time aren't they? BTW, my first micro was an 1802, but that was a while
ago. I don't think there's any need to feel threatened by a PIC chip.
There will likely always be a place for gates, discretes, and even
vacuum tubes. If you can't tell "it's fudging", then it really doesn't
matter does it? ;-)

Why else would they ignore his first requirement!??

Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
--------------------
I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do voltage
level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point, even that has its
uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that he wanted primarily
to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

Right. In 1950 it would have been done with tubes, in the 70's it would
have been done with a bunch of 74xx logic, now it's done with a micro
99% of the time. That's if
cost/simplicity/accuracy/reliability/advancement account for anything.
I'm not saying a PIC is right for every job, but it's at least as good
as duct tape when it comes to attaching the real world to some
electronics.

If you don't like micros, no
problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions and
attempt to force them upon the world.
--------------------------
You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me you
look quite stupid.

Perhaps you should make yourself a bit more clear then when referring to
the "digitally untrained". I guess some of us can't hear as well whilst
hiding our ineptitude behind our PIC chips.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Byron A Jeff wrote:

In article <3F95BA6B.5212@armory.com>,
R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
-Robert Monsen wrote:
-
-> "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
-> news:3F94C013.7020@armory.com...
-> > Rich Grise wrote:
-
-> > > C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the first 4
-> > > responses are "Use a PIC".
-> > -------------
-> > That's because the people who tout PICs are actually digitally
-> > untrained and don't grasp simple digital design basics with the
-> > classic digital building-blocks, and they hide their ignorance
-> > behind "PICs", when that's actually all they know how to use.
-
-
-> Perhaps this is a good reflection of the people you've worked with, but I
-> don't think its generally true. Microcontrollers are really pretty awesome
-> devices, and are far cheaper than those 'classic digital building-blocks',
-> at least when you consider the functions that can be performed by them.
-------------
-Agreed, but then why would people who know how to use them show a
-peculiar avoidance of the original digital building blocks? There
-seems to be no connect between one and the other in your justification.

But that justification is quite more than enough. Programmable logic of
some sort is the solution to most every problem that involves hooking up
multiple discrete digital components.
---------------------------------

That's NOT a PIC!! And he didn't ASK for that, he asked SPECIFICALLY!

-They intentionally went out of their way to avoid answering the
-question that was asked when a newbie to electronics wants to know
-the ORIGINAL way to perform a digital task! Usually people who KNOW
-these things like to show off and show them several levels of more
-and more sophisticated answers.

No. Actually we all questioned why not use a microcontroller and the answer
came back as lack of exposure.
------------------------------------

So you elected to make him another brain-dead PIC-plodder begging for
"spare code" on street corners, instead of teaching him digital
electronics.

-But I have found that whenever I find a person who wants to use a PIC
-for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that he simply is unable to tell me another
-way to do it when I conftont him. He will do such things when in high
-speed time critical static Boolean ideal situations as try to find a
-faster PIC instead of use something as simple as a latch and a gate!!

Interesting point! Personally I don't do that because I'll simply pull the
appropriate gate and use it. OTOH I generally will try to stuff as much
as possible into the programmable hardware because it let's me trade off
physical hardware for virtual software.
-----------

You and *I* know that, but without him STARTING there, he NEVER will!

-> The PIC12F675 costs a couple of bucks, and, in less demanding applications,
-> can replace discrete counters, timers, A/D chips, display driver chips,
-> configuration eeproms, temperature sensors (!), X-10 controllers, PLDs, D/A
-> & signal generators (with the addition of an external R-2R ladder), PWM
-> controllers, etc, etc, etc. Most of this can be accomplished with NO
-> external parts...
-------------------
-I know all this, this is not what my question is about.

Actually to a point it is. The question is should a beginner bother to start
with the raw digital components when it's possible to get so much packaged
in a single integrated unit.
-----------------------------

Precisely so that he doesn't stay FOREVER an electronics beginner,
dogged by spurious successes at coding PICs, and without the most
basic grasp of what Boolean constructs are!

It's really the same as the programming question: should one have to learn
machine language and assembly before programming in higher level languages.
It's certainly not cut and dried situation.
-------------------------------

It's not that, it's another entirely, whether one who asks to learn
electronics, should be taught software instead, cheating them.

-> They can be reused over and over again, making them the perfect logic for
-> the hobbyist, and an easy way to prototype for the professional.
---------------------
-Except they are NOT PLDs and cannot be treated as them so cavalierly,
-they have the problems of machine-level timing and limitations based
-on not being static answers to state-driven problems.

All true. In short they are not the right answer for every job. But I posit
that they are the right answer for such a significant classification of
jobs that they should be embraced. Even when a uC isn't the complete solution
it most often can be integrated as part of the solution.
---------------

I agree that all should learn them, but they should not be handed
that as "digital electronics".

Steve, I agree that the saavy digital designer needs to have the whole arsenal
of tools in the box. I even agree that in an academic environment, that the
bottom up foundational approach is probably the correct way to approch it
(maybe. I'm waffling.) But when it's a job, and it needs to be done now, then
teaching time is over and you pick the fastest, most stable solution to put
together.
-------------------------------------

Not on sci.electronics.basics, when a newbie SPECIFICALLY asks how to
do it electronically, rather than in software.

Note that in my original post, I suggested that he use the PC hardware and
interface to the parallel port. The less hardware, the more likely that the
task actually gets done.
----------------------------

The less hardware, the less learning of electronics.

-> Your statement above could also be applied to FPGA or CPLD devices, which
-> are often used to replace those "classic digital building-blocks". You
-> probably wouldn't accuse the folks who use these devices of simply covering
-> up their ignorance...
---------------------------------
-Not at all, but they would show the newbie the original building blocks
-and THEN they'd show them how those can be implemented in PLDs in the
-same ways!

You're a teacher, n'est pas? I can hear you teaching. I get frustrated when
my students want to know little more than what icon to click and what they
need to do to make a good grade.
------------------------------------------

I am a former teacher, indeed.

But there is a time and place for such things. When you have to build and test
4 of these boxes presumably in a short time frame, you pull out the simplest
hardware to get the job done.

BAJ
------------------------

If that's all he had asked for, then I'd have ignored the thread
because I know it is well-covered by gaggles of brain-limited PIC
afficianados.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Byron A Jeff wrote:

In article <3F95BED8.7844@armory.com>,
R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
-Anthony Fremont wrote:
-
-> R. Steve Walz wrote:
-> > Rich Grise wrote:
-

-> Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
-> craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
---------------------
-I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do voltage
-level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point, even that has its
-uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that he wanted primarily
-to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

I respectfully disagree Steve. The OP made it clear that he needed to build 4
of these tools and that he didn't want to talk about microcontrollers solely
because he wasn't familiar with them.

So despite his protestations, we collectively should present the best options
for success.
-----------------------

That's not informative. That's a "kit of parts".

-> If you don't like micros, no
-> problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions and
-> attempt to force them upon the world.
---------------------------
-You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me you
-look quite stupid.

I have to admit Rich that you do seem quite silly here. Because if you've been
hanging around Steve for the last 10 years or so you would know that Steve
actaully does know everything about electronics.

BAJ
------------

Everything? Well no...

Wrong attribution, I believe, Rich Grise knows me.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the first 4
responses are "Use a PIC".
-------------
That's because the people who tout PICs are actually digitally
untrained and don't grasp simple digital design basics with the
classic digital building-blocks, and they hide their ignorance
behind "PICs", when that's actually all they know how to use.

Really? That sounds allot like the Rube Goldbergs that refuse to use
the proper device (in this case a micro) and instead set about
building a ridiculous contraption that costs >20 times as much as
the micro solution.
-------------------------------
He asked how to do it, he didn't say he had to. He certainly didn't
want to produce something for sale, so what's your beef?

"they hide their ignorance behind "PICs" " I guess that's where the beef
is.
--------------------------

Yes, I have found this to be sadly true.

You'd think that the "digitally trained" would have the
ability to work with a micro, after all it's mostly a collection of
logic gates.
----------------
Do you resent his newbie status THAT BADLY?? Why? This is s.e.basics!!
Or are you stupid enough to imagine that *I'm* some newbie, and if
so, you REALLY don't know ME!!

Newbie status, moi? Hardly Maybe new to this group I guess, but
certainly not new to the hobby.

Or are they really just hiding their own ignorance of
complex digital logic by slamming micros every time they are
mentioned?
------------------------------------
You're a young foolish one. You have NO idea who *I* am, do you?

No, but from that comment I'm guessing your some kind of god?
-------------------------------------

Physicist-engineer, 12 years on the Net, renown ftpsite/website.
You may kiss my ass now.

I just hate to see newbies dissed for wanting to know how we got
here, and just being handed a "cure-all" and being told to shut up.

Please show me where I did anything like that. It happens that the OP's
project is a glove fit for a micro, but I guess you know that already.
What with being a legend and all.
---------------------------------

Of course it is, but you answer people's questions here, this is
s.e.basics afterall. We teach electronics.

I've used lots of uP's and uC's, from Z80's and 8085's to 8051 cores,
and even Z8's and 6502's once upon a time, BUT!: I've also often
designed a permanent solution for a dedicated problem many hundreds
of times with discrete SSI and MSI logic, and I'd hate to think that
people will stop knowing what the perfect static/dynamic solution to
a problem is, without just emulating a solution with a processor that
just happens to run fast enough so you can't tell that it is fudging.

Someone should tell all those DSP doofs that, they're wasting allot of
time aren't they?
-----------------

Don't be silly, but DSPs are out of the purvey of s.e.basics, let us
all admit.

BTW, my first micro was an 1802, but that was a while
ago. I don't think there's any need to feel threatened by a PIC chip.
There will likely always be a place for gates, discretes, and even
vacuum tubes. If you can't tell "it's fudging", then it really doesn't
matter does it? ;-)
---------------------------

If it has encouraged people to fail to learn what they will need to
design the next generation of processors, yes.

Why else would they ignore his first requirement!??

Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
--------------------
I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do voltage
level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point, even that has its
uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that he wanted primarily
to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

Right. In 1950 it would have been done with tubes, in the 70's it would
have been done with a bunch of 74xx logic, now it's done with a micro
99% of the time. That's if
cost/simplicity/accuracy/reliability/advancement account for anything.
I'm not saying a PIC is right for every job, but it's at least as good
as duct tape when it comes to attaching the real world to some
electronics.
---------------------------

Whether a multiplexer/decoder/counter is made of tubes, transistors,
SSI, or MSI, it is the principle of the multiplexer/decoder/counter
from primary Boolean that must be taught, instead of merely how to do
something similar in code with a clocked controller.

If you don't like micros, no
problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions and
attempt to force them upon the world.
--------------------------
You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me you
look quite stupid.

Perhaps you should make yourself a bit more clear then when referring to
the "digitally untrained". I guess some of us can't hear as well whilst
hiding our ineptitude behind our PIC chips.
-------------------------------

Don't be facetious, if you know what you're doing you are trying on
the wrong pair of shoes here.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Lord Garth]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-me@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kujlb.1539$pJ1.982@twister.austin.rr.com...

Lord Garth wrote:

Personally, I would use whatever micro filled the bill. Simply
realize that a statement like "Use a PIC" does nothing to solve a
problem.

Well...I agree with that....but I'm not the one that made that
particular comment. I try not to just say abrupt things like that when
suggesting that someone learn to use micros. I try to motivate them
with the promise of how much more they'll be able to do when they make
the effort to use them. I just get really preterbed by some people's
attitudes about micros.

If a PIC can do the job and you're so inclined, draw and post the
schematic and include the necessary source code.

I probably would, but I'm dinking with ultrasonic ranging right now.
;-) I may go back and review his requirements and offer up a decent
suggestion for him though. I would probably be willing to help him
debug his code if he were so inclined to write some. What I wouldn't
want to do is do the whole project for him, and that's what I'd be doing
if I drew a plug-n-play schematic and wrote/debugged all the code.

A while back I did write the code for someones project and give it to
them, all they had to do was get a PIC and program it. I don't think
they ever tried.

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

michael

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on A.B.S.E.?

 

[Anthony Fremont]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the
first 4 responses are "Use a PIC".
-------------
That's because the people who tout PICs are actually digitally
untrained and don't grasp simple digital design basics with the
classic digital building-blocks, and they hide their ignorance
behind "PICs", when that's actually all they know how to use.

Really? That sounds allot like the Rube Goldbergs that refuse to
use the proper device (in this case a micro) and instead set about
building a ridiculous contraption that costs >20 times as much as
the micro solution.
-------------------------------
He asked how to do it, he didn't say he had to. He certainly didn't
want to produce something for sale, so what's your beef?

"they hide their ignorance behind "PICs" " I guess that's where the
beef is.
--------------------------
Yes, I have found this to be sadly true.

Perhaps you haven't looked in all the right places, there are some
pretty sharp engineers that happen to use micros. If a PIC is the right
tool, it's the right tool even if it does seem too easy and doesn't use
allot of parts. ;-)

You'd think that the "digitally trained" would have the
ability to work with a micro, after all it's mostly a collection of
logic gates.
----------------
Do you resent his newbie status THAT BADLY?? Why? This is
s.e.basics!! Or are you stupid enough to imagine that *I'm* some
newbie, and if so, you REALLY don't know ME!!

Newbie status, moi? Hardly Maybe new to this group I guess, but
certainly not new to the hobby.

Or are they really just hiding their own ignorance of
complex digital logic by slamming micros every time they are
mentioned?
------------------------------------
You're a young foolish one. You have NO idea who *I* am, do you?

No, but from that comment I'm guessing your some kind of god?
-------------------------------------
Physicist-engineer, 12 years on the Net, renown ftpsite/website.

12 years on the net, wow. You may have beat me by a year there. I've
seen your web site, you should divide it up into what's yours and what's
from others. It would be easier to see your contribution to the world.
As for me, >20 years professional (paid ;-) software development
including mainframe low-level OS stuff along with 15 years of PC/network
guruing, and >25 years generally tinkering with electronics and micros.
Only been a HAM for about 14 years though. I set up my first production
Linux server in the spring of 1995.

You may kiss my ass now.

I think I'll pass if you don't mind.

I just hate to see newbies dissed for wanting to know how we got
here, and just being handed a "cure-all" and being told to shut up.

Please show me where I did anything like that. It happens that the
OP's project is a glove fit for a micro, but I guess you know that
already. What with being a legend and all.
---------------------------------
Of course it is, but you answer people's questions here, this is
s.e.basics afterall. We teach electronics.

Wouldn't part of that be to mention the fact that a micro WAS a viable
solution to his problem, and probably the best one at that? After
reading some of your other posts in this thread, I can see where you're
coming from. However, you wouldn't recommend that he solve the problem
with tubes just to gain a full appreciation of electronic theory.

I've used lots of uP's and uC's, from Z80's and 8085's to 8051
cores, and even Z8's and 6502's once upon a time, BUT!: I've also
often designed a permanent solution for a dedicated problem many
hundreds of times with discrete SSI and MSI logic, and I'd hate to
think that people will stop knowing what the perfect static/dynamic
solution to a problem is, without just emulating a solution with a
processor that just happens to run fast enough so you can't tell
that it is fudging.

Someone should tell all those DSP doofs that, they're wasting allot
of time aren't they?
-----------------
Don't be silly, but DSPs are out of the purvey of s.e.basics, let us
all admit.

Perhaps they are for now, but will it always be that way?

BTW, my first micro was an 1802, but that was a while
ago. I don't think there's any need to feel threatened by a PIC
chip. There will likely always be a place for gates, discretes, and
even vacuum tubes. If you can't tell "it's fudging", then it really
doesn't matter does it? ;-)
---------------------------
If it has encouraged people to fail to learn what they will need to
design the next generation of processors, yes.

Now that's really stretching it. You seem to think that using micros is
creating some kind of perpetual dumbing down in electronics. I think
the real problem is that someone can obtain a degree having never held a
soldering iron. Now that should worry you.

Why else would they ignore his first requirement!??

Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
--------------------
I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do
voltage level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point, even
that has its uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that he
wanted primarily to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

Right. In 1950 it would have been done with tubes, in the 70's it
would have been done with a bunch of 74xx logic, now it's done with
a micro 99% of the time. That's if
cost/simplicity/accuracy/reliability/advancement account for
anything. I'm not saying a PIC is right for every job, but it's at
least as good as duct tape when it comes to attaching the real world
to some electronics.
---------------------------
Whether a multiplexer/decoder/counter is made of tubes, transistors,
SSI, or MSI, it is the principle of the multiplexer/decoder/counter
from primary Boolean that must be taught, instead of merely how to do
something similar in code with a clocked controller.

I don't disagree with that. I don't think it precludes using something
more advanced to solve a problem, even if it doesn't align with your
planned curriculum. This is simply not a classroom, it's a public forum
and everyone is on there own page.

If you don't like micros, no
problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions and
attempt to force them upon the world.
--------------------------
You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me you
look quite stupid.

Perhaps you should make yourself a bit more clear then when
referring to the "digitally untrained". I guess some of us can't
hear as well whilst hiding our ineptitude behind our PIC chips.
-------------------------------
Don't be facetious, if you know what you're doing you are trying on
the wrong pair of shoes here.

I'm not "trying on" any "shoes", but if I shouldn't be here if I'm not a
newbie, then why are you allowed? I like to try to help people too, I
don't see why that should be a problem.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Lord Garth wrote:

"Anthony Fremont"

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on A.B.S.E.?

It's sent, but I don't see it yet.

michael

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the
first 4 responses are "Use a PIC".
-------------
That's because the people who tout PICs are actually digitally
untrained and don't grasp simple digital design basics with the
classic digital building-blocks, and they hide their ignorance
behind "PICs", when that's actually all they know how to use.

Really? That sounds allot like the Rube Goldbergs that refuse to
use the proper device (in this case a micro) and instead set about
building a ridiculous contraption that costs >20 times as much as
the micro solution.
-------------------------------
He asked how to do it, he didn't say he had to. He certainly didn't
want to produce something for sale, so what's your beef?

"they hide their ignorance behind "PICs" " I guess that's where the
beef is.
--------------------------
Yes, I have found this to be sadly true.

Perhaps you haven't looked in all the right places, there are some
pretty sharp engineers that happen to use micros. If a PIC is the right
tool, it's the right tool even if it does seem too easy and doesn't use
allot of parts. ;-)
-------------------------

Yes, of course, and no, I'm not talking about engineers. There are
a bunch of hobbyists who have so far avoided learning more than just
about that one little trick, however.

You'd think that the "digitally trained" would have the
ability to work with a micro, after all it's mostly a collection of
logic gates.
----------------
Do you resent his newbie status THAT BADLY?? Why? This is
s.e.basics!! Or are you stupid enough to imagine that *I'm* some
newbie, and if so, you REALLY don't know ME!!

Newbie status, moi? Hardly Maybe new to this group I guess, but
certainly not new to the hobby.

Or are they really just hiding their own ignorance of
complex digital logic by slamming micros every time they are
mentioned?
------------------------------------
You're a young foolish one. You have NO idea who *I* am, do you?

No, but from that comment I'm guessing your some kind of god?
-------------------------------------
Physicist-engineer, 12 years on the Net, renown ftpsite/website.

12 years on the net, wow. You may have beat me by a year there. I've
seen your web site, you should divide it up into what's yours and what's
from others.
-----------------

It's a resource, and the few that have complained I have told to
send me their art with their "beloved's" attribution on it, and none
but one EVER did. When you want to squawk about art *I* can reproduce
in ten minutes and put MY name on it, and tell them that's what I'll
do if they want to harrass me, they all give up. Most of them have
copied these same schematics from derivative work elsewhere or from
databooks, and *I* KNOW it!

It would be easier to see your contribution to the world.
----------------

I charge for most of MY contribution to the world, and my website
is just a free hobbyists' resource.

As for me, >20 years professional (paid ;-) software development
including mainframe low-level OS stuff along with 15 years of PC/network
guruing, and >25 years generally tinkering with electronics and micros.
Only been a HAM for about 14 years though. I set up my first production
Linux server in the spring of 1995.
---------------------

I figured you had SOME experience.

You may kiss my ass now.

I think I'll pass if you don't mind.
----------------------

Why did I know that!? ;->

I just hate to see newbies dissed for wanting to know how we got
here, and just being handed a "cure-all" and being told to shut up.

Please show me where I did anything like that. It happens that the
OP's project is a glove fit for a micro, but I guess you know that
already. What with being a legend and all.
---------------------------------
Of course it is, but you answer people's questions here, this is
s.e.basics afterall. We teach electronics.

Wouldn't part of that be to mention the fact that a micro WAS a viable
solution to his problem, and probably the best one at that?
-------------

Yes, but on an EL:ECTRONICS ng, that's a bit like publishing the same
PIC schematic for everything with a notation that the code varies!!

After
reading some of your other posts in this thread, I can see where you're
coming from. However, you wouldn't recommend that he solve the problem
with tubes just to gain a full appreciation of electronic theory.
---------------------------

I recommend at least one tube excercise to everyone in electronics.

I've used lots of uP's and uC's, from Z80's and 8085's to 8051
cores, and even Z8's and 6502's once upon a time, BUT!: I've also
often designed a permanent solution for a dedicated problem many
hundreds of times with discrete SSI and MSI logic, and I'd hate to
think that people will stop knowing what the perfect static/dynamic
solution to a problem is, without just emulating a solution with a
processor that just happens to run fast enough so you can't tell
that it is fudging.

Someone should tell all those DSP doofs that, they're wasting allot
of time aren't they?
-----------------
Don't be silly, but DSPs are out of the purvey of s.e.basics, let us
all admit.

Perhaps they are for now, but will it always be that way?
-------------------------------

Basics, is basics. It's hard to tell people even what a DSP does
without the fundamentals behind them.

BTW, my first micro was an 1802, but that was a while
ago. I don't think there's any need to feel threatened by a PIC
chip. There will likely always be a place for gates, discretes, and
even vacuum tubes. If you can't tell "it's fudging", then it really
doesn't matter does it? ;-)
---------------------------
If it has encouraged people to fail to learn what they will need to
design the next generation of processors, yes.

Now that's really stretching it. You seem to think that using micros is
creating some kind of perpetual dumbing down in electronics.
------------------

No, not for engineers, but for hobbyists, yes.

I think
the real problem is that someone can obtain a degree having never held a
soldering iron. Now that should worry you.
-----------------

Indeed it does, in my physics labs we had Brahmin youth from India,
who, as members of that caste had felt dirtied by contact with tools
and had never used them, physics was taught them on a chalk board in
India!! This was partly the caste system and partly a lack of equipment
of course. You should see them in lab and how they destroy equipment
using the wrong tool for everything. Only Japanese girls are worse off
tool-wise!

Why else would they ignore his first requirement!??

Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
--------------------
I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do
voltage level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point, even
that has its uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that he
wanted primarily to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

Right. In 1950 it would have been done with tubes, in the 70's it
would have been done with a bunch of 74xx logic, now it's done with
a micro 99% of the time. That's if
cost/simplicity/accuracy/reliability/advancement account for
anything. I'm not saying a PIC is right for every job, but it's at
least as good as duct tape when it comes to attaching the real world
to some electronics.
---------------------------
Whether a multiplexer/decoder/counter is made of tubes, transistors,
SSI, or MSI, it is the principle of the multiplexer/decoder/counter
from primary Boolean that must be taught, instead of merely how to do
something similar in code with a clocked controller.

I don't disagree with that. I don't think it precludes using something
more advanced to solve a problem, even if it doesn't align with your
planned curriculum. This is simply not a classroom, it's a public forum
and everyone is on there own page.
-----------------------------------

Sure, but standards have to come in as standards can, and by those
willing and capable of defending them.

If you don't like micros, no
problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions and
attempt to force them upon the world.
--------------------------
You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me you
look quite stupid.

Perhaps you should make yourself a bit more clear then when
referring to the "digitally untrained". I guess some of us can't
hear as well whilst hiding our ineptitude behind our PIC chips.
-------------------------------
Don't be facetious, if you know what you're doing you are trying on
the wrong pair of shoes here.

I'm not "trying on" any "shoes", but if I shouldn't be here if I'm not a
newbie, then why are you allowed? I like to try to help people too, I
don't see why that should be a problem.
--------------------------

Okay, you speak your piece of poop, and I'll speak mine. I'm sure we
both have things to say, just note that I'm a gonna crab at you at
times, as I did THIS time, as a way of being illustrative of my point.

Nothing personal.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Lord Garth wrote:

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on A.B.S.E.?
-------------------

I have that stuff, I think. If you want it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Costas Vlachos wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F95BAFA.6EB6@armory.com...
Costas Vlachos wrote:

I suggest you try to build his project using "classic digital
building-blocks". Then you will probably understand why so many are
suggesting a microcontroller...

Costas
-----------------
I've built hundreds of things that way, AND used lots of 8051 cores,
Z80's, as WELL as PICs. There's nothing about his needs I don't
understand, but when you are asked a fucking question, first answer
it, or else just keep your mouth shut.

-Steve

I've been reading your replies to this thread, and it looks like you really
care a lot about the original poster's problem and how our microcontroller
suggestions may affect his learning of digital electronics. So, since you
claim to be an expert in this area, why not offer your help to the OP by
actually replying to *his* post with a detailed solution.

Come on Steve, get those counters running, let's see some schematics.

Costas
-------------

I'm not going to "fix it for him", I'd lead him to it, and offer the
resources. Handing it to people never helps them. That's why I don't
offer "kits" online, just resources.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Lord Garth]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-me@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1gmlb.1832$pJ1.166@twister.austin.rr.com...

Lord Garth wrote:
"Anthony Fremont"

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on A.B.S.E.?

It's sent, but I don't see it yet.

michael

Thanks...I'll look...

 

[Lord Garth]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F95F5A6.394C@armory.com...

Lord Garth wrote:

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on A.B.S.E.?
-------------------
I have that stuff, I think. If you want it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

I asked you about it last year and you didn't have the TDL version howerver,
all are accepted!!!!

Recall I sent you a BASIC that ran on a Mostek Z-80 system at that time...
BTW, my ISP is altered since then.

 

[Costas Vlachos]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F95BAFA.6EB6@armory.com...

Costas Vlachos wrote:

I suggest you try to build his project using "classic digital
building-blocks". Then you will probably understand why so many are
suggesting a microcontroller...

Costas
-----------------
I've built hundreds of things that way, AND used lots of 8051 cores,
Z80's, as WELL as PICs. There's nothing about his needs I don't
understand, but when you are asked a fucking question, first answer
it, or else just keep your mouth shut.

-Steve

I've been reading your replies to this thread, and it looks like you really
care a lot about the original poster's problem and how our microcontroller
suggestions may affect his learning of digital electronics. So, since you
claim to be an expert in this area, why not offer your help to the OP by
actually replying to *his* post with a detailed solution.

Come on Steve, get those counters running, let's see some schematics.

Costas

 

[Lord Garth]

"Lord Garth" <LGarth@Tantalus.net> wrote in message
newsDmlb.1127$Qd6.73@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-me@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1gmlb.1832$pJ1.166@twister.austin.rr.com...
Lord Garth wrote:
"Anthony Fremont"

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on A.B.S.E.?

It's sent, but I don't see it yet.

michael

Thanks...I'll look...

Not yet...

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F95F3F1.2490@armory.com...

Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

C'mon, folks! The first requirement was "No PIC's", and the
first 4 responses are "Use a PIC".
-------------
That's because the people who tout PICs are actually digitally
untrained and don't grasp simple digital design basics with
the
classic digital building-blocks, and they hide their ignorance
behind "PICs", when that's actually all they know how to use.

Really? That sounds allot like the Rube Goldbergs that refuse
to
use the proper device (in this case a micro) and instead set
about
building a ridiculous contraption that costs >20 times as much
as
the micro solution.
-------------------------------
He asked how to do it, he didn't say he had to. He certainly
didn't
want to produce something for sale, so what's your beef?

"they hide their ignorance behind "PICs" " I guess that's where
the
beef is.
--------------------------
Yes, I have found this to be sadly true.

Perhaps you haven't looked in all the right places, there are some
pretty sharp engineers that happen to use micros. If a PIC is the
right
tool, it's the right tool even if it does seem too easy and doesn't
use
allot of parts. ;-)
-------------------------
Yes, of course, and no, I'm not talking about engineers. There are
a bunch of hobbyists who have so far avoided learning more than just
about that one little trick, however.

Maybe, but using micros has made a world of difference for me. I can
now get things to work that were only pipedreams in the past.

You'd think that the "digitally trained" would have the
ability to work with a micro, after all it's mostly a
collection of
logic gates.
----------------
Do you resent his newbie status THAT BADLY?? Why? This is
s.e.basics!! Or are you stupid enough to imagine that *I'm* some
newbie, and if so, you REALLY don't know ME!!

Newbie status, moi? Hardly Maybe new to this group I guess, but
certainly not new to the hobby.

Or are they really just hiding their own ignorance of
complex digital logic by slamming micros every time they are
mentioned?
------------------------------------
You're a young foolish one. You have NO idea who *I* am, do you?

No, but from that comment I'm guessing your some kind of god?
-------------------------------------
Physicist-engineer, 12 years on the Net, renown ftpsite/website.

12 years on the net, wow. You may have beat me by a year there.
I've
seen your web site, you should divide it up into what's yours and
what's
from others.
-----------------
It's a resource, and the few that have complained I have told to
send me their art with their "beloved's" attribution on it, and none
but one EVER did. When you want to squawk about art *I* can reproduce
in ten minutes and put MY name on it, and tell them that's what I'll
do if they want to harrass me, they all give up. Most of them have
copied these same schematics from derivative work elsewhere or from
databooks, and *I* KNOW it!

hmm....

It would be easier to see your contribution to the world.
----------------
I charge for most of MY contribution to the world, and my website
is just a free hobbyists' resource.

We all have to eat. I charge for my work as well, but I don't mind
throwing a few bones.

As for me, >20 years professional (paid ;-) software development
including mainframe low-level OS stuff along with 15 years of
PC/network
guruing, and >25 years generally tinkering with electronics and
micros.
Only been a HAM for about 14 years though. I set up my first
production
Linux server in the spring of 1995.
---------------------
I figured you had SOME experience.

A wee bit. Every thing I learn only serves to make me more aware of how
much I don't know.

You may kiss my ass now.

I think I'll pass if you don't mind.
----------------------
Why did I know that!? ;-


I just hate to see newbies dissed for wanting to know how we got
here, and just being handed a "cure-all" and being told to shut
up.

Please show me where I did anything like that. It happens that
the
OP's project is a glove fit for a micro, but I guess you know
that
already. What with being a legend and all.
---------------------------------
Of course it is, but you answer people's questions here, this is
s.e.basics afterall. We teach electronics.

Wouldn't part of that be to mention the fact that a micro WAS a
viable
solution to his problem, and probably the best one at that?
-------------
Yes, but on an EL:ECTRONICS ng, that's a bit like publishing the same
PIC schematic for everything with a notation that the code varies!!

That's not far from the truth. It's unavoidable when the solution
consists of only one active device.

After
reading some of your other posts in this thread, I can see where
you're
coming from. However, you wouldn't recommend that he solve the
problem
with tubes just to gain a full appreciation of electronic theory.
---------------------------
I recommend at least one tube excercise to everyone in electronics.

I never built anything from scratch using tubes, but I've poked around
some older equipment and read some about them. They actually seem like
they'd have been fun to tinker with as they have some unusual
properties.

I've used lots of uP's and uC's, from Z80's and 8085's to 8051
cores, and even Z8's and 6502's once upon a time, BUT!: I've
also
often designed a permanent solution for a dedicated problem many
hundreds of times with discrete SSI and MSI logic, and I'd hate
to
think that people will stop knowing what the perfect
static/dynamic
solution to a problem is, without just emulating a solution with
a
processor that just happens to run fast enough so you can't tell
that it is fudging.

Someone should tell all those DSP doofs that, they're wasting
allot
of time aren't they?
-----------------
Don't be silly, but DSPs are out of the purvey of s.e.basics, let
us
all admit.

Perhaps they are for now, but will it always be that way?
-------------------------------
Basics, is basics. It's hard to tell people even what a DSP does
without the fundamentals behind them.


BTW, my first micro was an 1802, but that was a while
ago. I don't think there's any need to feel threatened by a PIC
chip. There will likely always be a place for gates, discretes,
and
even vacuum tubes. If you can't tell "it's fudging", then it
really
doesn't matter does it? ;-)
---------------------------
If it has encouraged people to fail to learn what they will need
to
design the next generation of processors, yes.

Now that's really stretching it. You seem to think that using
micros is
creating some kind of perpetual dumbing down in electronics.
------------------
No, not for engineers, but for hobbyists, yes.

I think
the real problem is that someone can obtain a degree having never
held a
soldering iron. Now that should worry you.
-----------------
Indeed it does, in my physics labs we had Brahmin youth from India,
who, as members of that caste had felt dirtied by contact with tools
and had never used them, physics was taught them on a chalk board in
India!! This was partly the caste system and partly a lack of
equipment
of course. You should see them in lab and how they destroy equipment
using the wrong tool for everything. Only Japanese girls are worse off
tool-wise!

Man oh man.

Why else would they ignore his first requirement!??

Why do you bother using logic chips? Wouldn't it be more
craftsman-like to build your logic from discretes?
--------------------
I have done that numerous times, just so we didn't have to do
voltage level-shifting constantly. But that's not the point,
even
that has its uses. The point is what his QUESTION was, and that
he
wanted primarily to KNOW HOW SUCH A THING IS DONE!!!

Right. In 1950 it would have been done with tubes, in the 70's
it
would have been done with a bunch of 74xx logic, now it's done
with
a micro 99% of the time. That's if
cost/simplicity/accuracy/reliability/advancement account for
anything. I'm not saying a PIC is right for every job, but it's
at
least as good as duct tape when it comes to attaching the real
world
to some electronics.
---------------------------
Whether a multiplexer/decoder/counter is made of tubes,
transistors,
SSI, or MSI, it is the principle of the
multiplexer/decoder/counter
from primary Boolean that must be taught, instead of merely how to
do
something similar in code with a clocked controller.

I don't disagree with that. I don't think it precludes using
something
more advanced to solve a problem, even if it doesn't align with your
planned curriculum. This is simply not a classroom, it's a public
forum
and everyone is on there own page.
-----------------------------------
Sure, but standards have to come in as standards can, and by those
willing and capable of defending them.

I tend to prefer my standards from places like ANSI, ISO, SAE, defacto
etc.... ;-) Are you sure you're not confusing standards with personal
opinions? ;-)

If you don't like micros, no
problem, but don't assume that you are correct in your opinions
and
attempt to force them upon the world.
--------------------------
You're assuming I don't like micros, and to anyone who knows me
you
look quite stupid.

Perhaps you should make yourself a bit more clear then when
referring to the "digitally untrained". I guess some of us can't
hear as well whilst hiding our ineptitude behind our PIC chips.
-------------------------------
Don't be facetious, if you know what you're doing you are trying
on
the wrong pair of shoes here.

I'm not "trying on" any "shoes", but if I shouldn't be here if I'm
not a
newbie, then why are you allowed? I like to try to help people too,
I
don't see why that should be a problem.
--------------------------
Okay, you speak your piece of poop, and I'll speak mine. I'm sure we
both have things to say, just note that I'm a gonna crab at you at
times, as I did THIS time, as a way of being illustrative of my point.

Oh, don't worry, my skin thickened up a long time ago. ;-) Be
forewarned, when poked I tend to poke back. ;-D

Nothing personal.

Of course not, it's usenet. ;-)

michael

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"Lord Garth" <LGarth@Tantalus.net> wrote in message
news:SVmlb.1135$lp6.610@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Lord Garth" <LGarth@Tantalus.net> wrote in message
newsDmlb.1127$Qd6.73@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-me@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1gmlb.1832$pJ1.166@twister.austin.rr.com...
Lord Garth wrote:
"Anthony Fremont"

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the
Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom
images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on
A.B.S.E.?

It's sent, but I don't see it yet.

michael

Thanks...I'll look...

Not yet...

It's showing up at my ISP (houston rr) finally. They're a mess of an
operation anymore when it comes to usenet, I can e-mail it if it doesn't
show up for you soon.

michael

 

[Lord Garth]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-me@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vznlb.2578$pJ1.24@twister.austin.rr.com...

"Lord Garth" <LGarth@Tantalus.net> wrote in message
news:SVmlb.1135$lp6.610@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Lord Garth" <LGarth@Tantalus.net> wrote in message
newsDmlb.1127$Qd6.73@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-me@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1gmlb.1832$pJ1.166@twister.austin.rr.com...
Lord Garth wrote:
"Anthony Fremont"

BTW, does anybody have a copy of TDL BASIC which was for the
Z-80
some 20 years ago? It is ROMable and only about 12k...

Not me, but I do have the easily obtainable 8052 BASIC rom
images and
source code used in a previous project if you could use that.

Thanks for the offer, can you attach it in a posting on
A.B.S.E.?

It's sent, but I don't see it yet.

michael

Thanks...I'll look...

Not yet...

It's showing up at my ISP (houston rr) finally. They're a mess of an
operation anymore when it comes to usenet, I can e-mail it if it doesn't
show up for you soon.

michael

Thanks, still not here in Dallas via sbcglobal.....

come to think of it, I'm using their Houston news server.
It seems the Dallas server like to have me retype my password
every time I scan for posts.

I'll check in the morning..




>