Hello, I wish start using Avr Studio and thought the best is ver.4, but I see also upgrades on ver. 3.54 with latest chips.
What's the right (less bugs) version to start with ?
thank you, Mark.
admin's test signature
4.0 is under construction use 3.54 it is working
Use AVR Studio 3.53 - it works. Version 4.0 looks pretty, but it is still alpha stage (i.e., enough of it works for it to be of interest to some people, but there is a lot of work to be done before it is finished). I've just tried 3.54 - quite simply, it doesn't work for my setup (JTAG, Mega128, ICCAVR compiler). After getting contact with the JTAG ICE, it dies. The same project works fine under 3.53, and, to the extent that 4.0 works, it also works under 4.0.
I've had the same question about which version. Studio 4 is being pushed but it isn't ready. I cannot set the RXC bit in the simulator to simulate a received character! Version 3.53 works fine. I've already loaded 4.0 twice now (new releases) and it is still not fixed. I won't be loading Studio 4 for a long time. Why release something that isn't ready and doesn't perform some basic functions correctly?
A few months ago I was in Your situation, and more or less still am I guess. I have used both Studio version 3 and 4. If You, like me, are learning to program in AVR assembler You should go for Studio 3:
Using the simulator when learning is priceless, and as long as Studio 4 has no support for watching named variables I probably will use Studio.
Studio 3 has it's annoyances, e g not remembering between executions where i have placed toolbars, but it is a more stable s/w right now.
Studio 4 looks really great but is not really "mature" yet. I have seen comments here from the Studio development team that it should be possible to implement watching of assembler variables, bur it sounded like this will not reach daylight for some time.
All this assuming You'll use assembler. If You are going for a higher level language (eg "C") then I don't have an opinion, but someone on this forum most certainly does and hopefully will share them. I for one will read such comments with great interest!
At the end of the day both Studio 3 and 4 are great packages given their price -$0! - but I'll stick to Studio 3 for some time yet.
I would have to agree with the previous posts 4.0 is not really ready for serious development work.
It has some really nice features but it seems to have bugs in the simulator, which seem to show up with code that is trying to talk to a UART.
There are several other post in this forum that confirm the UART support is buggy.
I have done some work with the PIC's looked at the spec's of the avr's and the fact GNU C is available and I was sold. I even went out and purchased SKT500 kit.
So I am still learning the avr but it is very frustrating when the simulator does not work because your first thought is that oh I must have coded something wrong. Then to spend hours chasing a bug that's not real.... Only to find when run on 3.XX works fine!
When I was learning PIC's I found the free tools to be solid and robust so it was a bit of shock to find the AVR tools not be the same.
Though I will be sticking with AVR's as I still think they are the more capable chips.
I also have problems with the AVR Studio 4! If I connect my ICE200 and try to download the contens of any memory area, it hangs. Under AVR Studio 3 its working perfectly!
The Atmel team is abusing the phorum user by providing a version which can not be even called beta. It seems No inhouse testing is carried out. Never ever dare to load version 4 at this time.
Version 3.53 is a good stable version to begin with.
Does anybody know how to program a STK-200 under AVR Studio 4???
I cannot find that option but I need it because I use a parallel ISP programmer...
The only solution to use the STK200 Dongle is Ponyprog or AVRISP. AVRSTUDIO is not able to use the parallel port because there's different drivers for Win9x, NT win2K and XP. The use of serial port is compatible with all win versions. That's why all new products is on this port.
© 2020 Microchip Technology Inc.