Accelerometer | ADC | ADXL | Adxl20 | AVR | BasicStamp | BX-35 | BX28 | BX35 | COM3 | Compiler | Downloader | EEPROM | Electromagnet | GetADC | GP2D1 | GPS | I2C | IDE | Keypad | LCD | LCD+ | MIDI | Motors | Multitasking | Netmedia | Networking | PCB | PID | PlaySound | PWM | Relays | RTC | Servo | ShiftOut | SitePlayer | SPI | Stack | Timer | USB

Well, I've got this great project running on a BX-24p.  The hardware
is done, the software is tweaked, and life is good.

A buddy asks me "Hey! Can you make ME one of those?"

I say "Sure! It'll cost you $50 for the chip, $20 for the board and
parts, another $15 for..."

"Can't you make it for less?" he interrupts.

Thinking about it for a while, I decide that I can't.  Not with a BX-24.  

So where do I go now?  The PIC family of processors is much cheaper
(per chip cost).  Not counting the programming board and/or IDE, it
seems like the way to go if the last column in the budget reads "Cheap".

I like developing on the BX, and I will certainly continue to do so. 
This one project however, would be fun to produce in limited
quantities for a reasonable amount of money.

So, if anyone has migrated any of their projects to another platform
(besides one of the pin-compatible clones), I would love to hear your
input/advice.  

-Don
	

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

My suggestion is the Atmel AVR's. A LOT cheaper, more I/O, tons more code
space, tons more RAM and tons more EEPROM.

Bascom (www.mcselec.com) makes a nice Basic-based IDE for them too.

Ken
	At 11:28 PM 1/25/2006 -0000, you wrote: 
>>>>
Well, I've got this great project running on a BX-24p.  The hardware
is done, the software is tweaked, and life is good.

A buddy asks me "Hey! Can you make ME one of those?"

I say "Sure! It'll cost you $50 for the chip, $20 for the board and
parts, another $15 for..."

"Can't you make it for less?" he interrupts.

Thinking about it for a while, I decide that I can't.  Not with a BX-24.  

So where do I go now?  The PIC family of processors is much cheaper
(per chip cost).  Not counting the programming board and/or IDE, it
seems like the way to go if the last column in the budget reads "Cheap".

I like developing on the BX, and I will certainly continue to do so. 
This one project however, would be fun to produce in limited
quantities for a reasonable amount of money.

So, if anyone has migrated any of their projects to another platform
(besides one of the pin-compatible clones), I would love to hear your
input/advice.  

-Don
	       SPONSORED LINKS

&k=Microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microproc
essors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=UdDdAWF2bsDy6v0lWl
SEtw">Microcontrollers</a></tt>

&k=Microprocessor&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microproces
sors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=VoadJ1bamd8enA4LX6dE
uw">Microprocessor</a></tt>

&k=Intel+microprocessors&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+micr
oprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=A0qO367q4CvK0
whGJ-ohOg">Intel microprocessors

&k=Pic+microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+micro
processors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=F3L2CjmP1R6IWV
2-gLceaQ">Pic microcontrollers
&k=Violator&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w
4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=4yvg0zfOI-hw6niZ7LVckA">Vi
olator</a></tt>
	----------------
  >Yahoo! Terms of Service.
	----------------
	

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In basicx@basi..., "psyclopedia" <psyclopedia@y...> wrote:
> "Can't you make it for less?" he interrupts.

I guess this buddy thinks that the custom bx24 project is not worth 
that much. Let him find this unique project at his local electronic 
shop. Most custom projects appear costly but often can not be be made 
cheaper unless we make very large quanities and that sometime takes 
longer. I often find to make things cheaper actually costs me more in 
development and debugging time. The Bx24 development system is not to 
bad, time wise. My projects are often prototyped in a day or two. When 
I use other new uP it always takes me longer because I have familiarize 
myself with their details.

You may find cheaper uP but it may be more frustrating to debug then 
the bx24. If you decide to go with another chip compare prices to the 
cost of their development system with the bx24. You may find the cost 
of using the bx24 is not that bad.

Some other things to consider by going to another chip you would have a 
different version of your project to fix when it messes up for your 
buddy and at the very least he would have a BX24 to use for his own 
projects.

RR
	

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I agree with Ken, Bascom is a very good Basic and the support is good. It doesn't have
multi-tasking, but you can work around that usually.

-----Original Message-----
From:	psyclopedia [mailto:psyclopedia@psyc...]
Sent:	Wed 1/25/2006 6:28 PM
To:	basicx@basi...
Cc:	
Subject:	[BasicX] Migrating to a new platform
Well, I've got this great project running on a BX-24p.  The hardware
is done, the software is tweaked, and life is good.

A buddy asks me "Hey! Can you make ME one of those?"

I say "Sure! It'll cost you $50 for the chip, $20 for the board and
parts, another $15 for..."

"Can't you make it for less?" he interrupts.

Thinking about it for a while, I decide that I can't.  Not with a BX-24.  

So where do I go now?  The PIC family of processors is much cheaper
(per chip cost).  Not counting the programming board and/or IDE, it
seems like the way to go if the last column in the budget reads "Cheap".

I like developing on the BX, and I will certainly continue to do so. 
This one project however, would be fun to produce in limited
quantities for a reasonable amount of money.

So, if anyone has migrated any of their projects to another platform
(besides one of the pin-compatible clones), I would love to hear your
input/advice.  

-Don
	SPONSORED LINKS 
Microcontrollers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=UdDdAWF2bsDy6v0lWlSEtw>
 	Microprocessor
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microprocessor&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=VoadJ1bamd8enA4LX6dEuw>
 	Intel microprocessors
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Intel+microprocessors&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=A0qO367q4CvK0whGJ-ohOg>
 	
Pic microcontrollers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Pic+microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=F3L2CjmP1R6IWV2-gLceaQ>
 	Violator
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Violator&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=4yvg0zfOI-hw6niZ7LVckA>
 	

  _____  

> .
	  _____
	[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
	

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In basicx@basi..., Ken Arck <ah6le@a...> wrote:
>
> My suggestion is the Atmel AVR's. A LOT cheaper, more I/O, tons 
more code
> space, tons more RAM and tons more EEPROM.
> 
> Bascom (www.mcselec.com) makes a nice Basic-based IDE for them too.
	I agree, this is what I did.  I use an ATMega128 as the platform 
when I find the BX-24 more limiting.

I am using C because I had some experience with it many moons ago, 
and it is quite powerful and FREE.  I believe Bascom is not free, 
and if memory serves, not cheap at all.

My philosophy is that the BX-type of platform is great for my usual 
project and allows me to get it breadboarded and working pretty darn 
fast.

If I need more I/O and/or RAM and/or program memory and/or speed, 
then it is probably worth the effort to rewrite everything into C.

I have not used Bascom, but it might be a nice "in-between" type of 
state.  The language will probably take care of many of worst 
headaches, while limiting your options somewhat.

As for WHICH proccessor to use?   Maybe the ATmega32 is a sweet 
spet, and is available in a PDIP package making it easy to hand 
assemble a project.

-Tony
	

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In basicx@basi..., "Westhoff, Thomas " <twesthoff@f...> 
wrote:
>
> 
>It doesn't have multi-tasking, but you can work around that usually.
	And this is one of the really nice things about the BX platform.  It 
greatly aids life for certain tasks.

I think you can set up timers using Bascom, and then have timed 
execution of certain processes.  With a little effort you can create a 
mini-timeslicing OS.  

There are pre-packaged multitasking environemnts for the ATMega 
hardware when writing in C.  I have never used them.

WHen I need to get a pseudo-multitasking environment, I use either a 
timer, or event-based interrupt system.  It works OK.   The side-
effect of this is that the task goes to sleep totally until the timer 
or event re-awakens it.  It will not run in a time sliced manner in 
parallel with other tasks.

You could have the "main" program simply track all the tasks 
(including your "main task" which is just the first task.  The main 
program will set up a timer, and track the instruction pointer for 
each task.  The timer will interrupt a task, and the main will switch 
to the nest task.

Intellectually simple, but not easy to do.  This is why I have never 
tried it.

-Tony
	

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 01:40 PM 1/26/2006 -0000, you wrote:
 
>It doesn't have multi-tasking, but you can work around that usually.

<---Actually, there are several mutlitasking OS's for the AVR's, including
several written for Bascom.

Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

You really should look at the CB280 (43$) from comfiletech .... 
it accomplishs the ease of basic(multitasking) and ladder with lots of ram, eeprom &
flash & i/o & 2 hardware RS232 & MAx232 chip on board etc etc
I am having much more sucess with this than the BX.
They now have a chipset for the CB280 for 19$ !! - havnt used it yet
Art

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	basicx@basi... [SMTP:basicx@basi...] On Behalf Of arhodes19044
> Sent:	Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:40 AM
> To:	basicx@basi...
> Subject:	[BasicX] Re: Migrating to a new platform
> 
> --- In basicx@basi..., "Westhoff, Thomas " <twesthoff@f...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >It doesn't have multi-tasking, but you can work around that usually.
> 
> 
> And this is one of the really nice things about the BX platform.  It 
> greatly aids life for certain tasks.
> 
> I think you can set up timers using Bascom, and then have timed 
> execution of certain processes.  With a little effort you can create a 
> mini-timeslicing OS.  
> 
> There are pre-packaged multitasking environemnts for the ATMega 
> hardware when writing in C.  I have never used them.
> 
> WHen I need to get a pseudo-multitasking environment, I use either a 
> timer, or event-based interrupt system.  It works OK.   The side-
> effect of this is that the task goes to sleep totally until the timer 
> or event re-awakens it.  It will not run in a time sliced manner in 
> parallel with other tasks.
> 
> You could have the "main" program simply track all the tasks 
> (including your "main task" which is just the first task.  The main 
> program will set up a timer, and track the instruction pointer for 
> each task.  The timer will interrupt a task, and the main will switch 
> to the nest task.
> 
> Intellectually simple, but not easy to do.  This is why I have never 
> tried it.
> 
> -Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>
	

______________________________
controlSUITE™ software. Comprehensive. Intuitive. Optimized.
Real-world software for real-time control. Details Here!


(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I was saying that it is not included with Bascom.  I saw the app notes on how to do it,
but I do not know of any specifically made for Bascom.
What are multitasking products are you talking about?
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From:	Ken Arck [mailto:ah6le@ah6l...]
Sent:	Thu 1/26/2006 8:50 AM
To:	basicx@basi...
Cc:	
Subject:	Re: [BasicX] Re: Migrating to a new platform
At 01:40 PM 1/26/2006 -0000, you wrote:

>It doesn't have multi-tasking, but you can work around that usually.

<---Actually, there are several mutlitasking OS's for the AVR's, including
several written for Bascom.

Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of state-of-the-art repeater controllers and accessories.
http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net
	SPONSORED LINKS 
Microcontrollers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=UdDdAWF2bsDy6v0lWlSEtw>
 	Microprocessor
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microprocessor&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=VoadJ1bamd8enA4LX6dEuw>
 	Intel microprocessors
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Intel+microprocessors&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=A0qO367q4CvK0whGJ-ohOg>
 	
Pic microcontrollers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Pic+microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=F3L2CjmP1R6IWV2-gLceaQ>
 	Violator
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Violator&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&w5=Violator&c=5&s=109&.sig=4yvg0zfOI-hw6niZ7LVckA>
 	

  _____  

> .
	  _____
	[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
	

> ... I decide[d] that I can't [make it for less].  Not with a BX-24...

In small volume, that might be true if the BX-24 is the limiting cost.
And, in small volume, that cost might just be too high for you or your
friend; so it is.  In larger volumes, though, it both makes sense to
consider recoding the project for another machine - and to consider a
different approach of using existing code affordably.

I have asked for the cost of licensing Basic-X - the OS alone - for
implementation in _my_ hardware, which must, obviously, still be a
suitable AVR.  I received a cost/volume estimate that is considerably
lower than purchasing a pile of modules, but the details of how that
would be applied remain undetermined.  My understanding is that
Netmedia has done something similar to this in the past by providing
preprogrammed processor chips (including the customer's application
code), which provides them physical protection of their code.

IMO, it is the OS - not the modules - that is the main attraction. 
The processor modules are convenient for development and small jobs,
but it is the operating system that is the big draw, I think, and I
believe Netmedia would do well to consider marketing it alone.
	Tom
	

--- In basicx@basi..., "Tom Becker" <gtbecker@r...> wrote:
>Netmedia would do well to consider marketing it alone.

I agree completely.  

I have looked at the AVR chips, and the ATmega32 has all the right
specs.  Actually it's a bit much in the I/O department, but that's
certainly no problem at all.  At $6 each, the cost advantage is
obvious, even with the additional outlay for required components
and/or software to make it work.  As was mentioned, there's a 40 pin
PDIP version which is easy to work with, although size constraints
rule it out.  Most likely the SMT 44 pin version will be the one I use
(Toaster oven = Reflow oven).  

As my C skills leave a bit to be desired, I would certainly have to
spring for a basic style language, which I think, would be a
worthwhile investment.  Multitasking is high on my priority list (the
current BX version has 5 seperate tasks), so I'll have to do some more
research on the capabilities of the available programming environments.

I think I'll order the development kit today, and see what I can make
happen.  Perhaps I'll even brush up on my C a bit as well.  I'll hold
off on buying software until I get a better idea of what's available.
 For the moment, the trusty BX-24 is doing it's job nicely.  I hope it
doesn't get jealous.
	-Don
	

After looking around quite a bit, I've found that I might have to bush
up on my C skills alot.  Out of all of the basic environments I've
seen, only a select few have any multitasking at all, an even those
are limited in one way or another.

I am still migrating to a less expensive processor, at this point
mostly for the learning experience, but I now have a much better
understanding why the BX-24 costs as much as it does.  All of the hard
work has been done for us already.

-Don
	--- In basicx@basi..., "psyclopedia" <psyclopedia@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In basicx@basi..., "Tom Becker" <gtbecker@r...> wrote:
> >Netmedia would do well to consider marketing it alone.
> 
> I agree completely.  
> 
> I have looked at the AVR chips, and the ATmega32 has all the right
> specs.  Actually it's a bit much in the I/O department, but that's
> certainly no problem at all.  At $6 each, the cost advantage is
> obvious, even with the additional outlay for required components
> and/or software to make it work.  As was mentioned, there's a 40 pin
> PDIP version which is easy to work with, although size constraints
> rule it out.  Most likely the SMT 44 pin version will be the one I use
> (Toaster oven = Reflow oven).  
> 
> As my C skills leave a bit to be desired, I would certainly have to
> spring for a basic style language, which I think, would be a
> worthwhile investment.  Multitasking is high on my priority list (the
> current BX version has 5 seperate tasks), so I'll have to do some more
> research on the capabilities of the available programming environments.
> 
> I think I'll order the development kit today, and see what I can make
> happen.  Perhaps I'll even brush up on my C a bit as well.  I'll hold
> off on buying software until I get a better idea of what's available.
>  For the moment, the trusty BX-24 is doing it's job nicely.  I hope it
> doesn't get jealous.
> 
> 
> -Don
>
	

--- In basicx@basi..., "psyclopedia" <psyclopedia@y...> 
wrote:
>All of the hard work has been done for us already.
	Yep, it has.  It is really a marvel of miniaturization.  If I were 
to make one, I might use a FRAM chip instead of the EEPROM to avoid 
the issue of write limits (and FRAM writes faster).  But FRAM is 
quite a bit more expensive, I think.  Excessively more expensive for 
most users.

C is a really nice language.  It is close enough to ASM that usually 
you can predict the ASM output.  At least I usually could when I 
wrote C for the intel platform with DOS.  SInce I do not know ASM 
for the AVR, I can no longer predict the output.  When I look at the 
Disasm output, usually it makes good sense.

Modern Basic is quite strongly typed, so translating a Basic program 
to C is a snap except for the built-in complex features of Basic.  
You have to do more work to get those working, but once you get a 
module (like date output on the serial port), then you have that 
module forever more or less.  And there are quite a few of pre-
written modules available for C on the AVR.

I like to use the BX for prototyping, and feasibility.  Usually it 
works well enough right there that it is not worth the effort to go 
further (like to a raw AVR).  So far I have only once needed all the 
power of an ATMega128.  It is great for what I need it for.  I use 
17% of the program and data memory, but just about ALL of the I/O 
pins.  And I would not mind a couple more interrupt pins.

-Tony