ZX-40A Supported in v3.1.0?

liam.zbasic · Post by **liam.zbasic** » 30 July 2010, 0:36 AM

I still have a handful of ZX-40A chips and want to confirm that the latest IDE v3.1.0 support them. Is this so?

I'm researching AVRStudio-4 and WinAVR vs. CodeVision (free lite version) to understand embedded programs on blank chips. If the ZX-40A is no longer supported in v3.1.0, I plan to burn them with WinAVR programs. Will the bootloader hinder the process? If the 40A is still supported, I'll sacrifice just one.

From what I've gathered so far, programming blank chips is not trivial compared to ZBasic and requires at least two software tools (Studio-4 and WinAVR or CodeVision or Other) and an ISP or JTAG programmer that may require drivers. Too bad ATMEL doesn't do it the EZbasic way with one tightly integrated tool that is both the IDE & Compiler.

Liam

twesthoff · Post by **twesthoff** » 30 July 2010, 4:33 AM

If you want to use blank chips, I suggest using Bascom AVR, from www.mcselec.com. The language does not have multi-tasking and is limited in some ways compared to Zbasic, but works well, the compiled code is very fast, and has reasonable support. The ide and compiler are integrated and it is just a few clicks compiles and programs the chip. I have had good success using Bascom.

On 7/30/2010 3:36 AM, ZX-40 wrote:

I still have a handful of ZX-40A chips and want to confirm that the latest IDE v3.1.0 support them. Is this so?

I'm researching AVRStudio-4 and WinAVR vs. CodeVision (free lite version) to understand embedded programs on blank chips. If the ZX-40A is no longer supported in v3.1.0, I plan to burn them with WinAVR programs. Will the bootloader hinder the process? If the 40A is still supported, I'll sacrifice just one.

>From what I've gathered so far, programming blank chips is not trivial compared to ZBasic and requires at least two software tools (Studio-4 and WinAVR or CodeVision or Other) and an ISP or JTAG programmer that may require drivers. Too bad ATMEL doesn't do it the EZbasic way with one tightly integrated tool that is both the IDE & Compiler.

Liam

mikep · Post by **mikep** » 30 July 2010, 7:17 AM

My guess (based on OEMing ZBasic chips from Don) is that ZX-40A is still supported even though they are no longer sold.

Once a bootloader is programmed into a chip you can download new code over the serial port. The bootloader does not get in the way of regular code other than briefly at power on to check the serial port. There are many different bootloaders being used in AVR chips. The Oak Micros "om" line of chips uses one, Arduino has one and of course ZBasic also uses a bootloader.

Post by **dkinzer** » 30 July 2010, 8:06 AM

liam.zbasic wrote:I want to confirm that the latest IDE v3.1.0 support the ZX-40a?

It does. We still support all of the now-discontinued chips in that the compiler/IDE can be used to produce code. We do not, however, promise to continue to add support for new language features for the discontinued products.

liam.zbasic wrote:Will the bootloader hinder the process?

No. With the appropriate In-System Programmer, you can erase the device and, if desired, change the fuses so that it doesn't use a bootloader or so that the bootloader section is a different size.

spamiam · Post by **spamiam** » 30 July 2010, 8:34 AM

dkinzer wrote:you can erase the device and, if desired, change the fuses so that it doesn't use a bootloader or so that the bootloader section is a different size.

Just remember, that once you erase the chip then its support for ZBasic is gone forever. Not ideal.

Instead, you could simply buy a new blank ATMega chip and then use an ISP programmer to burn a standard bootloader. You would need the ISP to erase the ZBasic chip anyway. WinAVR (C programming language) and the Atmel AVR Studio 4 are not that hard to learn. With a simple bootloader, you only need to use the ISP programmer once, then you can simply download a program via serial or USB pretty easily.

A while ago I programmed using a JTAG programmer which allows on-chip debugging. But it hogs a few pins of the chip. Recently I have been programming the old fashioned way with debugging code sending info over the serial port and using a bootloader. It has been great. Almost as great as ZBasic. I just wish that I could have such simple multitasking in C as Zbasic gives me!

-Tony

liam.zbasic · Post by **liam.zbasic** » 30 July 2010, 19:42 PM

I got an AVRISP MKII programmer from a colleague who abandoned Studio-4/WinAVR for Arduino. Like him, I'm more than satisfied with the bootload approach. There is a degradation in speed (non issue for native devices), but still fast enough for my projects, by orders of magnitude.

Since I got an ISP programmer, I might as well dabble with Studio-4/WinAVR or Studio-4/CodeVision (free lite version) to see if I'm missing anything, other than cost of chips - cost and time are very important. So far, I'm a bit dissapointed with the ATMEL process, lots of overhead, good forum (avrfreaks). My problem is that I am accustomed to the ZBasic process, which took a couple hours or so to wire-up a breadboard and run a "hello" program once the chip came in the mail.

spamiam · Post by **spamiam** » 31 July 2010, 12:44 PM

liam.zbasic wrote:I got an AVRISP MKII programmer from a colleague who abandoned Studio-4/WinAVR for Arduino.

So far, I'm a bit dissapointed with the ATMEL process, lots of overhead, good forum (avrfreaks). My problem is that I am accustomed to the ZBasic process, which took a couple hours or so to wire-up a breadboard and run a "hello" program once the chip came in the mail.

Well, you, too, might like Arduino, if you find WinAVR/Studio to be too cumbersome. Personally, I absolutely detest makefiles, which are a staple for many platforms for C. These makefiles tell the compiler and linker what to do. I think that it is pretty obvious what you want to do when you just want to compile the code, and an IDE should only require a couple check boxes to verify what should be done.

That IDE interface is mostly supplied by Studio. It will create its own makefile, and you never see it. However, if you need to use floating point and printf(), then you have to do more work to get it to work. I had forgotten how non-intuitive it was to get sprintf() working. I did not remember that I needed to manually add some linker instructions for the behind-the-scenes makefile. No checkbox is available for that particular option!

Otherwise, I find WinAVR and studio very easy to use, especially with a neat bootloader and downloading program such as those from OakMicros.

I can't see that Arduino would be any easier than this. But you can install an Arduino bootloader on your AVR, and you can download the Arduino compiler too. You can find out more about this at OakMicros too! I have never used Arduino, so I should not comment on it, especially in light of the zillions of satisfied Arduino users. That said, Arduino strikes me as having neither more useful pre-written functions than Zbasic, nor more powerful than C. And Arduino seems slightly less convenient to program than Zbasic, and not much more convenient than a good bootloader like OakMicro's. I am probably wrong, but personally, I have not seen much use for Arduino. ZBasic is so good that there are only a few very specific needs that it can't fully satisfy, and I doubt that Arduino would fill that void.

Too bad ATMEL doesn't do it the EZbasic way with one tightly integrated tool that is both the IDE & Compiler.

Well, actually when using Studio you don't really see the WinAVR in the background. It looks like an all-in-one IDE from editing, compiling, to linking and running. you do not need "drivers" for an ISP or JTAG as they are included in Studio. If you want to bootload, then Studio can do that too, but I have never used that functionality. I use the OakMicros prgramming interface for their bootloader.

-Tony

ZBasic Forum