PICuno Equo vs Arduino Uno

[low5545]

PICuno Equo


Source: shahrulnizam.com

Arduino Uno


Source: arduino.cc

Specifications

-----------------------------------PICuno Equo (PIC18F4550)--------------Arduino Uno (ATMega 328p)---------------------
Flash Memory---------------------------32 Kb-----------------------------------------------32 Kb---------------------------------------
RAM---------------------------------------2 Kb------------------------------------------------2 Kb---------------------------------------
EEPROM Data-------------------------256 Bytes------------------------------------------1024 Bytes-----------------------------------
UART---------------------------------------1----------------------------------------------------1-----------------------------------------
SPI------------------------------------------1----------------------------------------------------2-----------------------------------------
I2C/TWI------------------------------------1---------------------------------------------------1------------------------------------------
Timers-------------------------------------4----------------------------------------------------3------------------------------------------
ADC Channels-----------------------------13---------------------------------------------------8-----------------------------------------
ADC Resolution-------------------------10 bits---------------------------------------------10 bits--------------------------------------
Comparators-------------------------------2----------------------------------------------------1-----------------------------------------
USB Interface-----------------------Yes, USB 2.0------------------No, connected to external ATMega 8U2 chip, USB 2.0--------
PWM Channels-----------------------------3----------------------------------------------------6-----------------------------------------

According to the comparison between both microcontroller/prototyping platform above, the Arduino Uno has more EEPROM data, SPI Interface and PWM channels than the PICuno Equo. On the other hand, the PICuno Equo has more timers, ADC channels and comparators than the Arduino Uno. Besides, the PICuno Equo also has a built-in USB interface in the microcontroller (PIC18F4550) while the Arduino Uno has an external ATMega 8U2 chip connected to the microcontroller (ATMega 328p) to channel serial communication over USB and appears as a virtual com port to software on the computer. This gives a benefit to the PICuno Equo as we can make it ourselves without the need to solder a SMD FTDI chip which really need skills to do that. Cytron may just sell the PICuno Equo PCB and all the components in a pack and we'll just solder it ourselves at a lower price + FUN! I'd suggest Cytron to just sell the PICuno Equo board without the microcontroller (PIC18F4550) as some people have the microcontroller somewhere around the corner at home. It is also said that the PICuno Equo has more execution speed as its preprocessor translates specific instructions of the Arduino language to native C instructions for PIC before the compilation.(refer--http://tutorial.cytron.com.my/2011/08/20/pinguino/) This can also be done on the Arduino Uno with Arduino Port Manipulation (refer-- http://tronixstuff.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/tutorial-arduino-port-manipulation/) but it will need more work on the programming. As for the programming, both language are the same but the PICuno Equo uses the Pinguino IDE while the the Arduino Uno the Arduino IDE. The PICuno Equo can work on the PIC18F4550(recommended) and the PIC18F2550 while the Arduino Uno on the ATMega 328 (recommended), 168 and 8. For the price of a PICuno Equo's microcontroller (PIC18F4550) compared to the price of an Arduino Uno's microcontroller (ATMega 328p),the PIC18F4550 is slightly more expensive than the ATMega 328p. So if you get your chips fried, you'll need to spend more money on the PICuno Equo. However, the Arduino Uno's microcontroller (ATMega 328p) is connected to a ATMega 8U2 chip while the PIC18F4550 doesn't (it has an internal USB interface). So if you somehow get your ATMega 8U2 chip fried, you'll need to get a new Arduino Uno that costs way more than spending on a fried PIC18F4550. The PICuno Equo would be a good start for beginners on the Arduino platform. Hope this help you guys to know more about the PICuno Equo and the Arduino Uno! (This is unofficial! )

Hoping to get one of those beta versions of the PICuno Equo from Cytron
Please do correct me if anything is wrong.

[low5545]

Updated on 27/10/2011

[shahrul]

What ever product it is, I only choose using PIC microcontroller. Don't like to explore other microcontroller.

[low5545]

It's hard for me to start on PIC as they are quite hard to learn compared to the Arduino, and also there are not many sites talking about the PIC's language. So I decided to start on Arduino.

[robosang]

well, for me, Arduino or PICuno does not matter, as long as it is easy to get started, cheap and user friendly.

It does not matter how many types of microcontroller board in the market, there will still be users. It is handphone, though iphone is popular, still many brand of phone out there.

Some like PIC, some like Arduino, some like TI, some like ARM, some like NXP..... see...

All that i know is this is good because we can have more platform to play with and every platform can grow from the user feedback.

[low5545]

More platform, more advanced, more fun!

[tonywk88]

Well, i haveIf i'm not mistaken, the Pinguno company are still working hard to get the library code fix and fit into the Pinguino IDE as in run in C language.

Well C language writing using MPLAB maybe are quite difficult and many stuff or setting need to be consider using MPLAB IDE, Pinguino IDE have come with an solution that make the PIC to function looks like Arduino where it will operate once you just included the library and type the correct code and no more setting or clock timer consideration again like in MPLAB IDE. Trigger and delay timer is just piece of cake and no need to write extra function for it.

Somemore, maybe one day, we could just download and use the code with writing the code again just like Arduino where the library code can be just download anywhere and is FOC.

[low5545]

After referring to the schematics of the PICuno Equo on http://www.pinguino.cc/download/schematics/PICuno-Equo/Schematic_PICUNO-EQUO%20rev1.0.0.pdf compared to the Pinguino example on http://wiki.pinguino.cc/index.php/PIC18F4550_Pinguino , I've noticed that 5+1 digital IO pins and 1 analog IO pin (also a digital pin) are not used. I would like to suggest to put those pins before/after the original pins in the Arduino/PICuno Equo to maximize the use of the PICuno Equo. In that way, we can have more pins without stopping the use of Arduino shields. (example in the attached picture, original picture from shahrulnizam.com)

Also, I've noticed that PIC18F4550 pin 33 and 34 are not in use, that means that the SDA, SDL and SCK pins are unusable, that leads to the lack of I2C/TWI and SPI communication. And how is PIC18F4550 pins 11, 12 and 13 be configured as MOSI, MISO ans SCK?

And also will the PWM pin share of RC1 and RB3 effect the use of either pins, while one of them is in use? If so, I'd rather have 2 PWM pins than 3.

One more thing, I've also noticed that Cytron have changed the pin mapping/numbering of the PIC18F4550 compared to the Pinguino example, so will this cause confusion when programming? (No pin numbering on the PICuno Equo) Maybe Cytron should put some pin numbering on the board, or maybe change the numbering below the board. For an example, digital pin 0 on the PICuno Equo is pin 26 of the PIC18F4550, but on the Pinguino example, pin 26 is pin 9 of the board. So what pin numbering should we use to program the PICuno Equo? I think we should follow the Pinguino example.

[sich]

After referring to the schematics of the PICuno Equo on http://www.pinguino.cc/download/schemat ... v1.0.0.pdf compared to the Pinguino example on http://wiki.pinguino.cc/index.php/PIC18F4550_Pinguino , I've noticed that 5+1 digital IO pins and 1 analog IO pin (also a digital pin) are not used. I would like to suggest to put those pins before/after the original pins in the Arduino/PICuno Equo to maximize the use of the PICuno Equo. In that way, we can have more pins without stopping the use of Arduino shields. (example in the attached picture, original picture from shahrulnizam.com)

Yes, you are right. However, we designed PICuno Equo to be physically identical to Arduino's pinout so that novice user has no problem to get started. Since the main focus is to make the PICuno Equo compatible with Arduino shields in the market, the existing pinout is sufficient for general user to develop any project using the shields. We want to avoid creating a product which might confuse the majority users. This issue is also related to your next question.

Also, I've noticed that PIC18F4550 pin 33 and 34 are not in use, that means that the SDA, SDL and SCK pins are unusable, that leads to the lack of I2C/TWI and SPI communication. And how is PIC18F4550 pins 11, 12 and 13 be configured as MOSI, MISO ans SCK?

This has to do with the difference between Atmel and Microchip's pin assignment for their chips, which is out of our control. PIC18F4550 shared the some of the pins for UART, SPI and I2C. So it's impossible for us to create a Pinguino which is identical with Arduino in term of hardware module. So we've chose to use the hardware UART, but replaced the hardware SPI with the software approach (in progress) because SPI is much simpler to be implemented in software if compared to UART. That mean the SPI libraries will be based on software bit-bang method. Then there's no problem with the pins that you mentioned above.

And also will the PWM pin share of RC1 and RB3 effect the use of either pins, while one of them is in use? If so, I'd rather have 2 PWM pins than 3.

No, they are two independent pins. Unfortunately you only can select the ALT PWM pin in configuration bit, so it's not accessible to user through the Pinguino IDE. You can use it if you want to use MPLAB IDE to write your code.

One more thing, I've also noticed that Cytron have changed the pin mapping/numbering of the PIC18F4550 compared to the Pinguino example, so will this cause confusion when programming? (No pin numbering on the PICuno Equo) Maybe Cytron should put some pin numbering on the board, or maybe change the numbering below the board. For an example, digital pin 0 on the PICuno Equo is pin 26 of the PIC18F4550, but on the Pinguino example, pin 26 is pin 9 of the board. So what pin numbering should we use to program the PICuno Equo? I think we should follow the Pinguino example.

Normally users don't need to know which PIC pins are connected. They only need to look at the pin label on the board and use the pin number instead. Eg: Analog - A0, A1...A5 and Digital 1, 2,...13. These are all predefined in the IDE provided later. So we don't need to follow the original Pinguino board's pinout.

[low5545]

Ok, thanks sich!