 Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me. |
Forum Index : Microcontroller and PC projects : MicroMite II
| Author | Message | ||||
lew247 Guru  Joined: 23/12/2015 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1702 |
What's the difference between the Micromite and the MicroMite II? I've been searching all the docs and throughout the forum but can't find anything definitive The only different versions I can see are Micromite and Micromite+ which has a lot more pins and more features available |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
@lew247 It did get a little bit confusing along the development path with naming but I believe the easiest answer is that the original MicroMite was based on an MX150 PIC chip; and when the MX170 came out, Geoff ported MMBasic to it resulting in double the memory. This allowed for many new features and he released it as the MM II. However, all versions are referred to as the MicroMite; with the 28pin and 44pin versions based on the MX170 chips, and the 64pin and 100pin versions based on the MX470 chips. The 64pin & 100pin versions have yet more memory being that the are based on the MX470. So Geoff packed in even more features and this is referred to as the MicroMite+ The MX150 goes to MMBasic 4.5E and is still very powerful for a lot of tasks. Only the MX170s and MX470s are currently supported with all the latest firmware releases. Hope this helps understand a bit better . . . . WW EDIT: As for the actual differences in software features, it is best referred to the manuals (I think there was a comparison chart somewhere at some point in time!!) |
||||
| lew247 Guru Joined: 23/12/2015 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1702 |
Thanks WW That makes perfect sense to me now Basically at the moment there are just uM and uM+ (ignoring the MX150 chip) and most if not all the program examples around will work for the Micromite whether it was written for a MX150 or MX170 I'm slowly getting there - one step at a time  |
||||
| drkl Senior Member  Joined: 18/10/2015 Location: HungaryPosts: 102 |
Hello, I suggest a simple short notation system for Micromite chips: MM28 - MM44 - MM64 - MM100 where the numbers mean the number of pins. It is very simple and easy to use (I used them...) drkl |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
Based on drkl's notation; and to make slightly easier with reference to MMBasic: MM28, MM44, MM64+, MM100+  |
||||
| paceman Guru Joined: 07/10/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1329 |
That's not quite true, there is a lot of uM2 code around that won't run on the MX150 chip - nor the MX250 'VT100 Terminal' chip which is also used by some. I also think it's a bit of a toss-up whether calling the Micromites 'MM' rather than 'uM' is a good idea because although MM does tie them in with MMBasic, it also confuses them with the Maximites. The original mono-colour Maximite (often now called the 'mono Maximite') and the subsequent Colour Maximite, both of which run on the MX695 and MX795 chips (in both 64 and 100-pin variants), were also referred to as MM's by a lot of people. In between the original Maximite and the Colour Maximite there was also the Mini-Maximite which is often called the Minimite. Code and chip-wise this was the same as the original (mono) Maximite, but was mounted on a limited small PCB. You'll also see some references to various 'Duinomites', often referred to as DM's. These were manufactured by Olimex and largely used Geoff's early MMBasic Maximite firmware - further firmware development of this 'fork' stopped several years ago and never included the current Micromite series. Greg |
||||
| drkl Senior Member Joined: 18/10/2015 Location: HungaryPosts: 102 |
Hello, Whitewizzard's notation: MM28,MM44,MM64+,MM100+ is very good! drkl |
||||
CircuitGizmos Guru Joined: 08/09/2011 Location: United StatesPosts: 1427 |
I agree with Paceman. Would rather see: uM28,uM44,uM64+,uM100+ Micromites and Maximites! - Beginning Maximite |
||||
| matherp Guru Joined: 11/12/2012 Location: United KingdomPosts: 10251 |
Problem is the maximum length of the "TOPIC" on the forum which means you can't qualify the applicability of the posting and get have space for any info on the subject. Most code will run on all MM, just 28 or 44, or just 64 and 100, other than a few pin number changes. The length issue is why I use uM2 or MM2 == (28 or 44), MM+ == (64 or 100), uM2(+) or MM2(+) == (all) |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
I also agree that uM is better than MM so that we can then include the MaxiMite range . . . . However, the MaxiMite range gets a bit more tricky to abbreviate: monoMM = Mono MaxiMite ColMM = Colour MaxiMite miniMM = Mini MaxiMite DMmini = DuinoMite Mini DMmega = DuinoMite Mega DM = DuinoMite Standard 
Perhaps we just abbreviate the MicroMites; and spell out clearly the MaxiMite type if posting about a MaxiMite? Thoughts (once again. . . . ) |
||||
| paceman Guru Joined: 07/10/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1329 |
I don't think it's going to be possible to abbreviate them all without some ambiguity and as Peter notes, it's important not to take up "Topic" heading space because it restricts useful 'quick scan' info about the thread. I think WW's last comment makes sense, i.e. call all the Micromites uM and differentiate them somehow, and leave all the Maximites just as MM but make sure that in all cases the first post spells out which system. There aren't many Maximite related posts now but they are still being sold and put to use. As far as differentiating the Micromites I like uM28,uM44,uM64+,uM100+. This doesn't differentiate the 150/170 uM versions but it is at least succinct. Peter's system works well if you know what it means, but I think it's a bit cryptic for less familiar readers. It still also does have the MM2/uM2 ambiguity with the Maximite. A lot of TBS members don't post the micro 'type' in their new-thread Topic heading anyway so the most important thing probably is to make sure the first post of a new thread spells out which 'system' (microprocessor/pin-count, MMBasic Version etc.) we're referring to. Greg |
||||
 Print this page |
 |
The Back Shed's forum code is written, and hosted, in Australia. | © JAQ Software 2025 |
