skohls@uceng.UC.EDU (Steve Kohls) (09/15/89)
Thanks to all those who responded to my post regarding the 8051 vs. the 68hc11. Special thanks to those who provided an in depth evaluation of either processor. In general, the 8051 was presented as being a faster chip in most respects, while the 68hc11 family was seen as having more useful features, and a "sane" architecture. Being previously partial to the Intel chip, I found a tough time deciding between the two. More than one respondent said that the choice between the processors would also depend on the application. I think the final argument that lead me to my decision of using the 68hc11 over the 8051, was availability of a large amount of free public domain software from Motorola's FREEWARE BBS. For those interested, the number is (512) 891-3733. Some of the available tools for the 'hc11 are assemblers, a monitor, Small C, a real-time kernel and Basic. Thanks to all, Steve -- ______________________________________ Steve Kohls Mad Roboticist skohls@uceng.uc.edu --------------------------------------
bryan@intvax.UUCP (Jon R Bryan) (09/15/89)
From article <2162@uceng.UC.EDU>, by skohls@uceng.UC.EDU (Steve Kohls): > > Thanks to all those who responded to my post regarding > the 8051 vs. the 68hc11... The HC11 is a good little chip. I think it would be more fair to compare the 8051 and the 6805. You can get the HC11 with Forth in its internal ROM, by the way. Send me mail if you would like the address. Depending on your application, you might want to look closely at the HC11's interrupt latency. It hasn't been a problem for me, but I believe it's in the 6-30us range. I just recently put the finishing touches on a controller for a variable reluctance motor, and I used a 68HC11 in the design. And you're right about Motorola having a lot of good stuff for it. I believe they recently added a real-time kernal.