Talk:PIC microcontrollers/Archive 1

message: These architectures bear little resemblance to the 8 bit microcontrollers. I suggest that they be moved to their own article. Choppingmall 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall we move dsPIC and PIC24 architecture? 

message: I wholy disagree with the asertion that there is a lot of support on the Internet for PIC chips freely available on the Internet because of their uses in hacking copy protection systems. I think that more important reasons start with the massive level of support that Arizona Microchip provided to the Electronics Hobbyist sector in the use of their devices. Further, the repeated articles and designs using them in projects in practical electronics magaizines (EPE, ETI, Etc.) Finally, the devices' inate advantages, high level of integration and ease of programming make these brilliant devices for small projects. All of these factors not only out weigh but predate the devices' use in cracking copy protection systems. Does anyone have any proof of the PIC support communities originating from the wish to crack copy protection systems? Particularly 194.178.209.84  --talkie_tim 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Talkie tim.  I also think that the real appeal of the PIC is that it's a great platform.  It's cheap, easy to use, and doesn't require a bunch of support circuitry to do anything: the perfect tinkerer's chip. (So as not to inadvertantly start a flame war, I should mention that AVR micros provide all these same benefits).  I don't know if it was the cracking efforts that brought PICs into the public eye, but I can certainly say that there are many better reasons for their huge popularity among hobbyists. -- DImfeld 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that agreement.  I started using Microchip PIC chips to automate environmental monitoring sensors in a big way at my university lab in Hong Kong in the mid-1990's.  PICs were widely used a long, long time before there was any such thing as copy protection in consumer electronics. There are a number of competing families of microcontrollers around these days and my colleagues who use them swear by them.  Microchip is still a major player in the game, though, and stays that way largely by having so many third party compilers and IDE's out there that support them. Plaasjaapie 04:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah the minimal support circuitry is a very good thing, you need about 4 caps and a crystal to get it running (even less if you use one with an internal oscilator). The pic is also a CHEAP platform to get started with: the IDE is free (as in beer), the assembler is free, a cut down version of the C compiler is free. Basic programmers can be built extremely cheaply and microchip sell one themselves with a basic demo board for less than £30. The pics themselves can be had in small quantities for free and aren't too expensive to buy.  Plugwash 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PICs on the Internet section

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/chart.aspx?branchID=1003&mid=10&lang=en&pageId=74
** In PIC microcontroller on Mon Jul 17 14:24:55 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
** In PIC microcontroller on Thu Jul 27 00:28:43 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The article incorrectly stated PIC was not an official acronym.  I corrected that.  PIC stands for "Peripheral Interface Controller". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.70.65 (talk • contribs) 
:do you have a reputable source for that assertion? Plugwash 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My 1976 MOS Data Book calls both the PIC1640 and PIC1650 "Programmable Interface Controller".  I'd say 1976 beats 1977 for determining "initial meaning."  I can post a scan. --Mr z 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the databook says specifically:  "The Programmable Interface Controller family (PIC1640/1650 and all extensions)..."  It seems rather likely by the capitalization that PIC in the part number refers back to the phrase "Programmable Interface Controller."  I've put photos (since I can't get my scanner working right now) on my webserver. --Mr z 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll include a link to a proper scan from the 1976 Databook in the reference if it's necessary.  Otherwise, you can verify the specific detail by looking at my (unfortunately blurry) photographs above.  Based on this older databook and a presentation I found at Microchip, though, I've edited the text to indicate that PIC1640 started off the family, not PIC1650, and that the initial, short lived name for the family was "Programmable Interface Controller." --Mr z 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected Acronym 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Strong appose, afaict the term "Peripheral Interface Controller" is used by neither microchip nor the users of theese devices. Nor does it provide a meaningfull description of the modern pics. The article currently is giving it FAR too much weight (it has been heavilly edited recently mainly by anons.
Whether the name describes the "present" use of the devices is not an argument for or against the meaning of the acronym.
Support Well, this Anon (me) has noticed the current definition of PIC is incorrect.  Sure, Microchip has no official acronym at present, but this is revisionist history.  PIC does and always has stood for "Peripheral Interface Controller".  I have to wonder if any of you have ever used these devices or know what you're talking about.  I have used these in designs as far back as 1996 and know what I am talking about.  The author David Benson asserts the PIC was initially designed as very fast I/O controllers and uses the acronym definition I have repeated here.  Check out his book ISBN: 0-9654162-0-8.  Of course, this might not convince some of you since I am a "lowly" anon.  Cheers.  You folks scream for sources and I have provided one.  Follow your own guidelines, for a change.
:: This tone will sure help you... Thank you for the reference anyway, I'll try to have a look at it. In the meantime, you're welcome to add it to the article. 
:: I only started to use PICs in 1999, but I can assure you that I never encountered the Peripheral Interface Controller. This is why I think that this term should only be mentionned once in the article, and the article should keep its current name. CyrilB 09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't bite people! This is a discussion, and nobody here tries to attack you. Relax... CyrilB 09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I checked out the external links section on this article and found that many of the links do not meet WP:EL guidelines.  Lots of commercial sites, excessive advertising (finanical COI), personal sites (NPOV), etc.  In order to cleanup the current warning, I am going ahead and removing many of these links and placing a warning on the EL section to discuss the addition of any new links here.  Hopefully that will keep this article a little cleaner and discourage any link spamming.  If I've removed any links that you feel are in compliance with WP guidelines, please leave a comment here and if others here agree, we'll add them back.  If you placed the links here originally, please don't take my edits personally.  Just trying to clean things up.  Thanks!  Calltech 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PIC programmers (Development Tools) section is becoming simply a magnet for links to commercial and personal websites.  WP is not a directory of links WP:NOT.  See links to avoid WP:EL. Adding dmoz entry to replace these links.  Add sites to dmoz directory rather than here.  Calltech 12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: According to my text book the PIC micro controller pipelines instructions. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Weedrat 11:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipelining 

message: If I may quote Choppingmall in part: (from this discussion page)
".... act boldly and make the changes you feel will improve the article. Choppingmall 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms - moved to here for repairs. 

message: AFAIK, the origins of the PIC is a Scientific Microsystems/Signetics 8X300 microcontroller.
http://www.trash.net/~luethi/microchip/faq/faq.html
 The first MPU using Harward architecture was the
 Signetics 8X300, and this was adapted by General Instruments
 in the mid 1970s for use as a Peripheral Interface Controller
 (PIC) which was designed to be a programmable I/O port
 for their 16-bit CP1600 MPU.
 General Instruments sold their microelectronics division
 in 1988 to a startup company called Arizona Microchip Technology.
 Microchip's main product was, and is still, a series
 of microcontroller families based on this PIC architecture.
 Their first family was introduced in 1989 with the PIC16C5X series.
http://www.cpushack.net/CPU/cpu2.html
http://www.cap-lore.com/stories/LLNL_history/john_fletcher_2p1.html
http://www.satyam.com.ar/comphist.htm
Can someone translate Spanish version ?
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/8X300  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecv (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins