🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:10:28 -0500, "mail12706@pop.net"
<mail12706@pop.net> wrote:

>I have seen so many compilers advertised for doing BASIC on the PIC
>chip, (PIC16C57, PIC16C84, etc).  Which one is the most versatile.
>
>I have (built) the PIC16C84 Programmer developed by Jens Madsen at

Hva'�h. Er det noget du vil s�lge, eller er din news-reader bare som
default sat til at sende til alle ng's??

/Henning

In article <3302DA84.5595@pop.net>, "mail12706@pop.net" <mail12706@pop.net> writes:
> I have seen so many compilers advertised for doing BASIC on the PIC
> chip, (PIC16C57, PIC16C84, etc).  Which one is the most versatile.
>
> I have (built) the PIC16C84 Programmer developed by Jens Madsen at
> http://www.ebar.dtu.dk/~c888600/newpic.htm which provides a Vpp
> self-source from the RS-232 directly instead of the external source.
> This programmer is so simple and well designed that anyone could order
> the parts and construct it without sapping alot of her time.  I just
> thought BASIC would be the simplest and easiest language for this chip,
> but as you know, We just can't pick any BASIC compiler, we all need one
> that does the trick!
>
> The current ones I know about:
>
> FED Basic Compiler
> PicoSaurus (I think it is the same as FED?)
> PicBasic Compiler from MicroEngineering Labs
> MEL Compiler

I have recently used both the FED and the MEL.   The FED apparently supports
a narrower range of PIC types, but offers more powerful (read complex)
code.  It is designed to be used with MPASM (native Microchip
assembler).  FED intends for you to prototype on their interpreter chip,
then convert to compiled.

The MEL supports almost all of the PICS and is oriented around the STAMP
basic.  It adds both peek and poke, 9600 baud serial, as well as embedded
 assembler.With it comes their macro assembler which digests both RISC
instructions, and the "8051 style" parallax set, apparently in mix &
match form.  I like this package better.


Still, the power of programming directly in assembler for speedy and
compact applications cannot be overstressed.

--
Chris.Scott@WKU.EDU  Chief Engineer, Public Radio- Western KY U
                     Telco: (502) 745-3834  Hm & Fax: (502) 781-1232
...just another insignificant VAX user.        \\\//
                                               (o o)
--------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-----------------------

scottcr@wku.edu wrote:
: In article <3302DA84.5595@pop.net>, "mail12706@pop.net" <mail12706@pop.net> writes:
: > I have seen so many compilers advertised for doing BASIC on the PIC
: > chip, (PIC16C57, PIC16C84, etc).  Which one is the most versatile.
: >
: > I have (built) the PIC16C84 Programmer developed by Jens Madsen at
: > http://www.ebar.dtu.dk/~c888600/newpic.htm which provides a Vpp
: > self-source from the RS-232 directly instead of the external source.
: > This programmer is so simple and well designed that anyone could order
: > the parts and construct it without sapping alot of her time.  I just
: > thought BASIC would be the simplest and easiest language for this chip,
: > but as you know, We just can't pick any BASIC compiler, we all need one
: > that does the trick!
: >
: > The current ones I know about:
: >
: > FED Basic Compiler
: > PicoSaurus (I think it is the same as FED?)
: > PicBasic Compiler from MicroEngineering Labs
: > MEL Compiler

: I have recently used both the FED and the MEL.   The FED apparently supports
: a narrower range of PIC types, but offers more powerful (read complex)
: code.  It is designed to be used with MPASM (native Microchip
: assembler).  FED intends for you to prototype on their interpreter chip,
: then convert to compiled.

: The MEL supports almost all of the PICS and is oriented around the STAMP
: basic.  It adds both peek and poke, 9600 baud serial, as well as embedded
:  assembler.With it comes their macro assembler which digests both RISC
: instructions, and the "8051 style" parallax set, apparently in mix &
: match form.  I like this package better.


: Still, the power of programming directly in assembler for speedy and
: compact applications cannot be overstressed.

: --
: Chris.Scott@WKU.EDU  Chief Engineer, Public Radio- Western KY U
:                      Telco: (502) 745-3834  Hm & Fax: (502) 781-1232
: ...just another insignificant VAX user.        \\\//
:                                                (o o)
: --------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-----------------------

FED Basic Compiler is only for the PIC16C74. You need their FED Basic
Interpreter to develope the code with. This uses an 8K 24LC65 EEPROM and
Interpreter in a 74. On completion you burn a OTP or EPROM version 74
with the object file.

The microEngineering Labs PicBasic Compiler is Basic Stamp I command
compatible with enchancements. These are Peek, Poke, 9600 baud, and now
new IIC routines in Version 1.30 Although initially designed for the
PIC16C84, You can burn most modern PIC16Cxx chips with the compiled
PicBasic code.

Just want to play around with a 64 token Basic Stamp I compatible
Interpreter in a PIC16C84 chip?

You will find all of the above subjects and more covered at dontronics.com

(Also a VAX User. ) :)

Don McKenzie  don@dontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

SLI, the serial LCD that auto detects baud rates from 100 to 125K bps.
SimmStick(tm) A PIC proto PCB the size of a 30 pin Simm Memory Module.
Covers all versions of the PIC16cxx family plus the Atmel AT89C2051.

> Hva'�h. Er det noget du vil s�lge, eller er din news-reader bare som
> default sat til at sende til alle ng's??

He was only spamming because it's a pretty narrow field and he was looking
for some results =)

Cheers,
Pete

> I have (built) the PIC16C84 Programmer developed by Jens Madsen at
> http://www.ebar.dtu.dk/~c888600/newpic.htm which provides a Vpp
> self-source from the RS-232 directly instead of the external source.
> This programmer is so simple and well designed that anyone could order
> the parts and construct it without sapping alot of her time.  I just
> thought BASIC would be the simplest and easiest language for this chip,
> but as you know, We just can't pick any BASIC compiler, we all need one
> that does the trick!

Well, this is completely useless to your question but wouldnt using the
native ASM be better? More versatile, learn more, and theres not many
commands, it's RISC after all..

Cheers,
Pete

Peter Cooper wrote:
>
> > I have (built) the PIC16C84 Programmer developed by Jens Madsen at
> > http://www.ebar.dtu.dk/~c888600/newpic.htm which provides a Vpp
> > self-source from the RS-232 directly instead of the external source.
> > This programmer is so simple and well designed that anyone could order
> > the parts and construct it without sapping alot of her time.  I just
> > thought BASIC would be the simplest and easiest language for this chip,
> > but as you know, We just can't pick any BASIC compiler, we all need one
> > that does the trick!
>
> Well, this is completely useless to your question but wouldnt using the
> native ASM be better? More versatile, learn more, and theres not many
> commands, it's RISC after all..
>
> Cheers,
> Pete
cheers Pete

"mail12706@pop.net" <mail12706@pop.net> wrote:

>I have seen so many compilers advertised for doing BASIC on the PIC
>chip, (PIC16C57, PIC16C84, etc).  Which one is the most versatile.

>I have (built) the PIC16C84 Programmer developed by Jens Madsen at
>http://www.ebar.dtu.dk/~c888600/newpic.htm which provides a Vpp
>self-source from the RS-232 directly instead of the external source.
>This programmer is so simple and well designed that anyone could order
>the parts and construct it without sapping alot of her time.  I just
>thought BASIC would be the simplest and easiest language for this chip,
>but as you know, We just can't pick any BASIC compiler, we all need one
>that does the trick!

question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]

bye! :)
---------------------------------------------------
-\------/----------/-------------------------------
--\----/-----------\-------------------------------
---\/\/-hite-------/-hade--------------------------
---Daniel Garlans -=- DLO and Duotech--------------
---www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/6431/---
--------programmer:graphician:web designer---------
---------------------------------------------------

Daniel Garlans wrote:
> 
> 
> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
> 

Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit 
microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.

Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.

-- 
=====================================================================
== Jerry Petrey                                                    ==
== Consultant Software Engineer - Member Team Ada and Team Forth   ==
==            Rockwell Collins Commercial Avionics Group           ==
==            Melbourne, FL   email: gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com      ==
=====================================================================

Jerry Petrey <gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com> wrote in article
<33159288.3CF1@mlb.cca.rockwell.com>...
> Daniel Garlans wrote:
> >
> >
> > question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
> >
>
> Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit
> microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
>
> Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.

The Delux model is the one with the real hair.

In article <33159288.3CF1@mlb.cca.rockwell.com>,
Jerry Petrey  <gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com> wrote:
>Daniel Garlans wrote:
>> 
>> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
>> 
>
>Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit 
>microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
>
>Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.
>
>== Jerry Petrey                                                    ==
>==            Melbourne, FL   email: gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com      ==
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the Programmable Interface Controller is for example, the Intel
i82C55 or the old 6520/22 from the 6502 family of programmable/peripheral/
/parallel interface controllers(pic's) or adapters(pia's) which were
parallel I/O port controllers. Some people even mistake PIC for the old
Programmable Interrupt Controllers, which are another Intel peripheral,
the i8259, and others in other uP families. All I know of are 40 pin 600
mil DIPs!!

The name PIC(tm) has nothing to do with "Programmable Interface Controllers"
or P.I."...Adapters".

--
And the PIC's that Microchip makes stands for Programmable Intelligent
Controller, as of 1979, when GI last defined them, (which is the parent
split-off company of direct descent for Arizona Microchip), now split off
from Arizona Microchip, the PIC and Microchip EEPROM sections. We just
call them Microchip here, but they still are using "Arizona" Microchip
in some places in the world. I don't know what GI does now, if anything,
but those PICs in another incarnation were all those cute dedicated task
chips from GI, like the SPO256-AL2 and CTS256-AL2 speech chips, and several
other interesting little sound and task controllers they marketed through
Radio Shack and the like. I have NO idea why General Instrument split off
Arizona Microchip, but I suppose the had a reason. Maybe David Wilkie at
Microchip who often lurks here when he has the time might tell us the
history one more time, if Microchip can even agree on what its history IS!!
;->

This "PIC" thing is a COMMON mistake! Anyway, this is also a FAQ and in
the sci.electronics.misc newsgroup FAQ file, and Mark Zenier knows more
about it all.
-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 *

Richard Steven Walz wrote:
> 
> In article <33159288.3CF1@mlb.cca.rockwell.com>,
> Jerry Petrey  <gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com> wrote:
> >Daniel Garlans wrote:
> >>
> >> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
> >>
> >
> >Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit
> >microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
> >
> >Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.
> >
> >== Jerry Petrey                                                    ==
> >==            Melbourne, FL   email: gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com      ==
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, the Programmable Interface Controller is for example, the Intel
> i82C55 or the old 6520/22 from the 6502 family of programmable/peripheral/
> /parallel interface controllers(pic's) or adapters(pia's) which were
> parallel I/O port controllers. Some people even mistake PIC for the old
> Programmable Interrupt Controllers, which are another Intel peripheral,
> the i8259, and others in other uP families. All I know of are 40 pin 600
> mil DIPs!!
> 
> The name PIC(tm) has nothing to do with "Programmable Interface Controllers"
> or P.I."...Adapters".
> 
> --
> And the PIC's that Microchip makes stands for Programmable Intelligent
> Controller, as of 1979, when GI last defined them, (which is the parent
> split-off company of direct descent for Arizona Microchip), now split off
> from Arizona Microchip, the PIC and Microchip EEPROM sections. We just
> call them Microchip here, but they still are using "Arizona" Microchip
> in some places in the world. I don't know what GI does now, if anything,
> but those PICs in another incarnation were all those cute dedicated task
> chips from GI, like the SPO256-AL2 and CTS256-AL2 speech chips, and several
> other interesting little sound and task controllers they marketed through
> Radio Shack and the like. I have NO idea why General Instrument split off
> Arizona Microchip, but I suppose the had a reason. Maybe David Wilkie at
> Microchip who often lurks here when he has the time might tell us the
> history one more time, if Microchip can even agree on what its history IS!!
> ;->
> 
> This "PIC" thing is a COMMON mistake! Anyway, this is also a FAQ and in
> the sci.electronics.misc newsgroup FAQ file, and Mark Zenier knows more
> about it all.
> -Steve
> --

Apparently even Microchip can't agree on the PIC's roots.  Alex Baker
of Microchip is quoted in a PIC FAQ (
http://www.paranoia.com/~filipg/HTML/LINK/ELE/F_PIC_faq.html#PICFAQ_008)
as saying that the General Instrument part that the present device
evolved 
from was called a Peripheral Interface Controller - PIC (no connection 
with the various devices from Intel and MOS Technology such as the 8255 
or 6522 of that era).

In any case, due the evolution of the family by Microchip, they are
downplaying PIC as an acronym and promoting it as just a part name
for a family of RISC 8-bit microcontrollers just as the 68HC11 or
other families.




=====================================================================
== Jerry Petrey                                                    ==
== Consultant Software Engineer - Member Team Ada and Team Forth   ==
==            Rockwell Collins Commercial Avionics Group           ==
==            Melbourne, FL   email: gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com      ==
=====================================================================

On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:56:24 -0500, Jerry Petrey
<gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com> wrote:

>Daniel Garlans wrote:
>>
>>
>> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
>>
>
>Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit
>microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
Not meaning to be pedantic, but it's actually Peripheral Interface
Controller ;)


>
>Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.
>

---
Simon Thompson   email simon@tyrant.demon.co.uk
Electronic Engineer
Manchester
England

In article <33176ac4.9856357@news.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Thompson <simon@tyrant.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:56:24 -0500, Jerry Petrey
><gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com> wrote:
>>Daniel Garlans wrote:
>>> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
>>
>>Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit
>>microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
>Not meaning to be pedantic, but it's actually Peripheral Interface
>Controller ;)
>>Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.

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.

Back then they were NMOS with a factory programmed ROM and therefore
were nowhere near as popular as the later CMOS EPROM versions.

Mark Zenier  mzenier@eskimo.com  mzenier@netcom.com

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
England

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 *

in <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.
...
: 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.

This smells of revisionist history.  The CP1600 was a pared down
variation of a PDP-11 and would be just as capable of I/O as any
comparable low end high integration minicomputer of the day.  (That chip
was typical GI quirky.  It was a 16 bit machine but the instruction set
only used 10 bits, And GI made 10 bit ROMs for program storage).  At
that point in time, machines were boxes full of boards connected with a
bus and I/O would have been implemented at the functional level of
boards.

A chapter in a computer architecture text from 1982, "Computer
Structures: Principles and Examples" states some of the design issues
for the PIC16xx family.  It was designed as a more powerful competitor
to the 4 bit TMS1000, the main single chip controller of that time.
(Although the 8048 and 3870 actually ended up the winners, IMHO).

But as for the name, you don't call a Pentium a 586, or Windows 95 by
Chicago, Spokane, Humptulips, or what ever city name used for the
internal development at Microsoft.  Likewise, the PIC1650 was named in
the datasheets as "Programmable Intelligent Computer" back in 1977, and
according to a history of the chip in "Computer Structures" was changed
to "Programmable Intelligent Controller" in the 1979 literature.

Unless you can come up with some sales literature that predates that,
I'd say the Peripheral is a matter of poor memory and spin.

Mark Zenier  mzenier@eskimo.com  mzenier@netcom.com

In article <5fde9e$b4c@ukko.trimble.co.nz>,
Charles Manning <charles_manning@trimble.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Who cares what PIC stands for? Judging by the amount of silliness on the
>subject I propose that we just forgo all the confusion by coming up with
>another name...
>
>Pedantic Individual's Controller?
>
-----------------------------------
I would agree with you entirely, EXCEPT for the degree of confusion this
engenders among newbies, who get all sorts of chips confused with each
other. MicroChip really should define it formally and announce it and be
done with it and fly that banner on their Web page, briefly explaining its
confused past and defining their acronym away from confusing names EITHER
involving interrupts, or peripherals, as it is a central processor in its
applications and doesn't do interrupt control as those chips do!! It would
save bandwidth on here if nothing else, as this occurs every year like
clockwork, SOMETIMES even each university quarter or semester!!
-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 *

Who cares what PIC stands for? Judging by the amount of silliness on the
subject I propose that we just forgo all the confusion by coming up with
another name...

Pedantic Individual's Controller?

In article <33159288.3CF1@mlb.cca.rockwell.com>, gdp@mlb.cca.rockwell.com wrote:
>Daniel Garlans wrote:
>>
>>
>> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
>>
>
>Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit
>microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
>
>Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.
>
How about answering this chap,and forget about what PIC stands for.
Just a thought.
Rob

: >Daniel Garlans wrote:
: >> question: What's a PIC chip? :) I've never heard of it...=]
: >Programmable Interface Controller - a family of RISC 8-bit
: >microcontrollers from Microchip Technology, Inc.
: >Look at http://www.microchip.com for detailed info on PICs.

: How about answering this chap,and forget about what PIC stands for.
: Just a thought.
: Rob

Yes Rob, while this has been going on, you can now get a free SimmStick PCB
if you buy a FED Basic 84, 57, or 74 Interpreter chip.

Or perhaps a free hex file that allows you to burn your own 84 chip with
provision for 64 basic tokens. Basic Stamp I command compatible.
Just join our SiClub.

Don McKenzie  don@dontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

Send a blank message to help@dontronics.com for more info.
SLI, the serial LCD that auto detects baud rates from 100 to 125K bps.
SimmStick(tm) A PIC proto PCB the size of a 30 pin Simm Memory Module.