Oldest Version that works with MPLab X

[greg@bwt-amps.com]

I have a CCS Compiler, I believe it's version 4.0.0.206 and although I've installed the plugin for MPLab X I'm still getting some issues. According to some other forums they indicate that my CCS compiler might be too old. What would I need to upgrade my compiler to in order to have it function?

[dyeatman]

[greg@bwt-amps.com]

Excellent, except I don't see a .lst file. Would it be located in the /PICC folder or someplace else? Also, still looking for the second part of my issue. Does anyone have knowledge as to which versions are compatible with MPlab X?

[ckielstra]

When your compiler is newer than about 2009 AND you have the Windows version and not one of the command-line only versions, then the easiest way to find your program version is:
- Go to the Windows Start Menu,
- find the PIC-C map
- select 'Compiler Version'

If the above doesn't work but you've once successfully compiled a project:
- Open the project map in Windows Explorer
- Find the file name <your project>.lst
- Open the file in a text editor and in the top few lines you will find the version number

Last resort if none of the above options applies:
- Open DOS prompt
- enter the command: ccsc.exe +V

[greg@bwt-amps.com]

So looking at a .lst from a project, I see it says my PCH says V5.025, however going with the DOS Command method, it references a PCH V3.231
It also says I have a PCM V4.014. I have no clue which one of these values is more useful, although since my project references PCH I'll assume that one.

[greg@bwt-amps.com]

On Further inspection, only one .lst file says v5 the rest confirm v3.231

[PCM programmer]

Just a question. Why do you need to use MPLAB X ? Other than trying
something new, the main reason is that the latest PICs are only supported
by MPLAB X for programming with Microchip's programmers (ICD3, etc.).

If you have a very old vs. 3.xxx compiler, the compiler itself won't
support the latest PICs. You could use MPLAB vs. 8.92 or an earlier vs.
http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler/en-us/devtools/dev-tools-parts.html

[greg@bwt-amps.com]

To be honest, I'm not really sure why we need MPLab X. We are currently using MPLab IDE V8.92 and PIC18F4420 which I can compile our project just fine in V8.92. Our client wants us to use MPLab X and neither me nor my boss are software savy enough to know what the difference would be. So this may be an exercise in futility.

[temtronic]

OK, I have to ask WHY would a client dictate what software you're using to cut code and blast PICs with?

If you're supplying them with 'pre programmed' PICs they can't edit/change your software.

Am I missing something here?

just kinda curious

Jay

[greg@bwt-amps.com]

Unfortunately, I don't know why. I'm giving my best guess as to who suggested what, but as to why I need to use MPLab X, I'm currently in the dark. This is more of a "here's your assignment" type situation for me.

[Ttelmah]

Put it this way, they are trying to shoot themselves in the foot.

MPLAB X, was an enormous step 'backwards'. For every chip that will run with standard MPLAB, I'd use it every time. It works better, is faster, has fewer faults, and was a perfectly competent piece of software. MPLAB X, is still nowhere near as good.

[PCM programmer]

I was afraid I was one of very few that didn't like MPLAB X. It makes
everything hugely complicated (wheels within wheels). I don't know
how Microchip can expect newbies to get excited about using PICs, when
they have to wade through a million details necessary to get MPLAB X
working with a project. It's going to turn away newbies and send them
to Arduino or something. They made a mistake.

[Ttelmah]

Yes, and for a lot of versions, it had so many little problems.

It is a very 'unfortunate' piece of software, and I agree about putting people off.
Even worse, try the Mac version. The PC version actually looks good compared to this.....