PIC Programmers For Modern Computing and Operating Systems.

Discussion in 'Embedded Systems and Microcontrollers' started by MCU88, Mar 12, 2015.

  1. MCU88

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 12, 2015
    360
    35
    PIC Programmers For Modern Computing and Operating Systems.

    I have an Windows 8 operating system on an notebook computer. I like to work with some of the older PICs, such as the 16F series, and I like having an bare bones burner to program them with (upload the hex file) Basically something (an circuit board) -- that is twice to treble the size of an matchbox, plugs into the USB port and has an ZIF socket to insert the chip for programming. My current programmer is exactly just as I describe, but only works for Windows XP and Win 7 (32-bit)

    My question: What are my options for an cheap solution to run on Windows 8?
     
  2. MaxHeadRoom

    Expert

    Jul 18, 2013
    10,555
    2,375
    Not sure if it runs on Win8, but the Picit 2 has a standalone program function that includes a Uart tester and signal generator and 3 ch digital display feature.
    Does not run on Pickit 3.
    There are basic boards out of UK that can be populated as needed made by Olimex.
    Max.
     
  3. MCU88

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 12, 2015
    360
    35
    The PICKIT is an in circuit programmer without an ZIF socket say 40-pin? I would like something with an ZIF socket on it. A board that is enclosed in an case would be nice. I would pay the premium.
     
  4. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,795
    950
    an XP virtual machine program can be installed and you can run your burner software package from within it.
     
    MCU88 likes this.
  5. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    With USB port? And they are slow unless you have a fast multicore CPU.
     
  6. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,795
    950
    slow for a computer, or for people?
    big difference.
     
  7. John P

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 14, 2008
    1,634
    224
    I question whether you really want that ZIF socket. Using that implies that you'll be programming a chip and then moving it over to a circuit where you'll run it. That's a hassle every time, and you might damage the pins of the chip when installing it (unless you have a second ZIF socket in your circuit). It is way easier to program the part in-circuit with a cable from your programmer board, if that's at all possible. It's true that there are concerns about using the same pins for programming as for other functions in the product, but development is so much easier I'd labor to set things up so it'll work.

    I use a PICkit 2 programmer (cheap Asian clone variety, so sue me) and it doesn't have a socket at all. I've never missed it.
     
  8. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    I tried it on AMD 3 core CPU which isnt actually on the lower end.
    Too slow to be useful + no USB.

    Now I use a small Win7 netbook with Intel Atom CPU, its not a bad CPU but has certain limits.
     
  9. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    There is no difference in programming a PIC using ISCP and usng a programmer with a ZIF. I used to have a PICStart Plus that had a ZIF. When I wanted to do ICSP, I just ran short wires from the ZIF to my target board.

    You can go in the other direction too. Get an ICSP programmer and use one of many adapter boards with ZIF sockets that plug into it. I happen to use the adapters from http://www.j1sys.com/

    John
     
  10. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,795
    950
    too old to hsve much experience with pic or arduino chips. I do have a long history writing HEX values into EEPROM chips. we had a huge 640k memory in computers in those days, and incredible bus sizes of 16 bits. chips were programmed so fast after the enter key was pressed, you couldn't pull the chip quickly enough to corrupt the data. :)
     
  11. MaxHeadRoom

    Expert

    Jul 18, 2013
    10,555
    2,375
    Since using Pic's I have probabally gone the gamut from using the development modules from Nigel Goodwin site, to making ZIF programming boards using the Olimex style, to the Picdem-2 Demo boards which have many peripherals and options (int/ext xtals etc) and 18p,28p and 40p sockets, I found it a pain when debugging to keep transferring the programmed pic over to the test board, the picdem-2 boards you can leave the pic socketed and then run the program under test.
    Max.
     
  12. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    Misguided. You can program a blank PIC directly in circuit + supply with power.
    2. You can simulate a program with MPLABX why debug it on real chip?
     
  13. MaxHeadRoom

    Expert

    Jul 18, 2013
    10,555
    2,375
    Been that way the most of my life. :rolleyes:
    Max.
     
  14. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,394
    1,606
    I use in circuit debugging because no simulation can truly capture reality and MPLAB will never simulate peripherals in any meaningful way.

    And I've been leaving pins free to do in circuit programming ever since I got my PICkit 1.

    Uno. The first.
     
  15. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    I found that unneeded using serial displays which are often present anyway.
     
  16. MCU88

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 12, 2015
    360
    35
    I personally prefer the idea of an programmer enclosed in an case with an ZIF socket 40-pin. I have used programmers before such as the TOP3000, which are on eBay for about USD200. This is an professional system (except for the Windows software, it is terrible) -- it makes sense being in an case. I code in C and get the job right after about fifty or so attempts. Granted. So it is 50 times moving the chip back and forth from the programmer to the test board. This is no problem. I am used to it and fast moving! No one has provided an real Windows 8 solution (as in a new system to purchase) -- not entirely keen on using the virtual XP machine.

    Thanks anyway for your responses.
     
  17. josip

    Member

    Mar 6, 2014
    63
    12
    Today, it depend on target micro device flashing posibility, and maximum practical writing speed. My multi-programer is able to flash MSP430x5xx target devices at 200 KByte/second (PC CDC interface).
     
  18. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,394
    1,606
    If you look at the programming spec for the PIC18 series (DS39622L) you will discover a 1mS minimum delay for each location written. That means the data rate is less than 1000 words/sec.

    I believe the other series have a similar timing requirement.

    As far as external devices for programming or debugging I've used such when that was all that was available. Doing it all in circuit is far more convienent, faster, and puts less stress on the parts too.

    ZIF sockets get kinda useless when you're using an SOIC or QFN package.
     
  19. MCU88

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 12, 2015
    360
    35
    What are you trying to talk me into developing an system for Win8 from scratch? Out of my league.
     
  20. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,394
    1,606
    Nope. Where did you get that?

    I was pointing out the inherent limit of any PIC programmer's speed.
     
Loading...