🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.lang.basic.misc
Article #154

Re: which BASIC is best for PIC chip?

#154
From: Richard Steven Walz
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 00:00
81 lines
5404 bytes
In article <3318c1b3.1360668@news.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Thompson <simon@tyrant.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Mar 1997 03:47:41 GMT, mzenier@netcom.com (Mark Zenier)
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry.  According to my 1977 General Instruments Semi. division
>>(Microchip's corporate predecessor) databook, it was orginally 
>>Programmable Intelligent Computer, but a few years later mutated 
>>into Programmable Intelligent Controller.
>Hmmm, ok then since we are talking history here I will explain from
>the begining using portions of the PIC micro-controller FAQ by Tom
>Kellett Tom@takdsign.demon.co.uk This portion of the FAQ has been
>contributed by Alex R. Baker <alex@microchp.demon.co.uk>
>
>Back in 1965, GI formed a Microelectronics Division, and indeed used
>this division to generate some of the earliest viable EPROM and EEPROM
>memory architectures.As you may be aware, the GI Microelectronucs
>Division were also responsible for a wide variety of digital and
>analog functions, in the AY3-xxxx and AY5-xxxx families. 
>
>GI also generated a 16 bit microprocessor, called the CP1600, in the
>early 70s. This was a reasonable microprocessor, but not particularly
>good at handling i/os. For some very specific applications where good
>i/o handling was needed, GI designed a Peripheral Interface Controller
>(or PIC for short), in around 1975. It was designed to be very fast,
>since it was i/o handling for a 16 bit machine, but didn't need a huge
>amount of functionality, so its microcoded instruction set was small.
>Hopefully, you can see what's coming....yes, the architecture designed
>in '75 is substantially the PIC16C5x architecure today. Granted, the
>1975 version was manufactured in NMOS, and was only available in
>masked ROM versions, but still a good little uC. The market, however,
>didn't particularly think so, and the PIC remained designed in at a
>handful of large customers only.
>
>During the early 80s, GI took a long hard look at their business, and
>restructured, leaving them to concentrate on their core activities,
>which is essentially power semiconductors. Indeed they are still doing
>this very successfully now. GI Microelectronics Division became GI
>Microelectronics Inc (a wholly owned subsidiary), which in 85 was
>finally sold to venture capital investors, including the fab in
>Chandler, Arizona.  The venture capital people took a long hard look
>at the products in the business, and got rid of most of it - all the
>AY3- and AY5- parts and a whole bunch of other stuff, leaving the core
>business of the PIC and the serial and parallel EEPROMs and the
>parallel EPROMs. A decision was taken to restart the new company,
>named Arizona Microchip Technology, with embedded control as its
>differentiator from the rest of the pack.
>
>As part of this strategy, the PIC165x NMOS family was redesigned to
>use one of the other things that the fledgling company was good at,
>i.e. EPROM - the concept of the CMOS based, OTP and eraseable EPROM
>program memory PIC16C5x family was born.
>
>>
>>Back then they were NMOS with a factory programmed ROM and therefore
>>were nowhere near as popular as the later CMOS EPROM versions.
>Indeed they were.
>---
>Simon Thompson   email simon@tyrant.demon.co.uk
>Electronic Engineer 
>Manchester
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, Simon, we've all read the FAQ, but some of us have been around a while
when this question was asked and intently answered by staff authorized to
answer such queries at Microchip, and THEY disagree with the FAQ and agree
instead with Mark Zenier, which is where he GOT HIS info!! Do a search of
the archives back about 2 to 2.5 years!! I wince every time I see that
piece of insistent balderdash in the FAQ whenever I see it, so learn THIS
Net Lesson on the FIRST try, a genuine human accomplishment:

                  -->  *FAQs Ain't Always Right!*!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com    http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/
-Lots of New FTP Electronics Stuff!! 900 Files/45 Dirs (Full Mirror ==> *)
-- 
-Steve Walz  rstevew@armory.com  ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew *
Europe:(Italy) ftp://ftp.cised.unina.it:/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com *
Oz:.AU ftp://ftp.peninsula.apana.org.au:/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com *
(U.Cinci) ftp://ieee.cas.uc.edu:/pub/electronics/mirrors/ftp.armory.com *
Technical Details
Message-ID: <5fajhr$bp1@news.scruz.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <3302DA84.5595@pop.net> <33176ac4.9856357@news.demon.co.uk> <mzenierE6DJAM.5q7@netcom.com> <3318c1b3.1360668@news.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10c949,b4fb240551785fc0
X-Google-Attributes: gid10c949,public
X-Google-Thread: f849b,b4fb240551785fc0
X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public
X-Google-Thread: fd6dd,b4fb240551785fc0
X-Google-Attributes: gidfd6dd,public
X-Google-Thread: f77ac,b4fb240551785fc0
X-Google-Attributes: gidf77ac,public
X-Google-Thread: 107cee,b4fb240551785fc0
X-Google-Attributes: gid107cee,public
X-Google-Thread: 1115ab,b4fb240551785fc0
X-Google-Attributes: gid1115ab,public
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: which BASIC is best for PIC chip?
Date: 1997/03/02
Message-ID: <5fajhr$bp1@news.scruz.net>
X-Deja-AN: 222434871
References: <3302DA84.5595@pop.net> <33176ac4.9856357@news.demon.co.uk> <mzenierE6DJAM.5q7@netcom.com> <3318c1b3.1360668@news.demon.co.uk>
Organization: The Armory
Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.arch.embedded,dk.loppemarked.edb,comp.robotics.misc,rec.models.railroad,sci.electronics.misc