AVR-Chat

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> wrote:
> > Regardless of what the AVR Zealots think, the AVR's are not "WAY"
> > better than the PICs,
> 
> But they are, or else there would have been a gcc port for pics.

Rubbish.
Just because something has a gcc port doesn't make it "better", it 
just means there was some keen zealot willing to take on the job.
I would hazard a guess the reason there is no gcc port for the PIC 
is that it's harder to write one, and no one has yet stepped up to 
the plate.

> Pics have a few extra useful variations tho.

Last I looked, PICs out-sold AVR by a large margin, therefore the 
PICs are more "popular" than AVR. I am willing to be corrected 
though.
If the OP is looking to learn micros to get into the job market for 
instance, then PICs might actually be a better option.
 
> Because its much easier to get an uncrippled C compiler and other 
tools free.

MPLAB is free, so are many other tools.
You can build your own programmer for almost nothing.
Many C Compilers are available, some reasonably priced, some mega 
expensive, just like the AVR. PICC Lite is freeware and supports 
several devices, perfect for the beginner.
But yeah, maybe the AVR has a slight edge in lower cost C compilers. 
Might be a factor for a beginner, might not.

> Avrs are easier for stack intensive things such as rtos etc. 32 
registers
> makes maths (especially float) operations *much* faster.

Totally irrelevent for the beginner or even intermediate user.

If you want fast floating point math there are much better platforms 
than trying to bleed every last cycle out of an 8 bit micro.

Any good designer will choose (and recommend) the micro which is 
most suited to the job, not stick to one type religiously.

The OP was given biased advice. The AVRs are not better than PICs, 
or vice versa. Depends entirely on a whole host of factors.

Dave :)