Micro800 vs MicroLogix

Personally, I'll take RSLogix 500 any day of the week over the 800 series.

I've had good applications for the micro800 line, and the CCW software has come a LONG way from the early days. (I started with version 1 ). I'm excited to see what V11 offers.

There are some really annoying things - like how the timers work, lack of bit access in a DINT, INT, etc. I end up writing some function blocks to make it work more like RSLogix, but it is still a chore.

That all being said - my Rockwell rep did the *wink wink* and implied they will be phasing out the 500 line. It costs way more hardware-wise, and they have full *convert from 500 to 800* catalogs and software.
 
I never heard the 800 is replacing the SLCs and don't think they will or are.... the 800's are replacing the MicroLogix 1000-1500

The SLC is being phased out but is being replaced by the Compactlogix, next time your rep winks at you... ask them if they have something in there eye ;)
 
We got an official notice, that Micrologix 1100 and 1400 would be available for at least next 7 years. That was roughly 6 months ago.
 
I never heard the 800 is replacing the SLCs and don't think they will or are.... the 800's are replacing the MicroLogix 1000-1500

The SLC is being phased out but is being replaced by the Compactlogix, next time your rep winks at you... ask them if they have something in there eye ;)

Yes, I guess I 'misspoke' by saying '500' series - I meant devices using RSLogix 500 like Micro 1000 series.
 
Yes, I guess I 'misspoke' by saying '500' series - I meant devices using RSLogix 500 like Micro 1000 series.

No worries... and welcome to the forum :site:

One thing around here forsure, if you 'misspeak' you will be challenged or corrected :rolleyes:
 
Hi! I am new to Allen Bradley and I first started with Micro850. I used CCW V12. I have programming experience with Siemens, Mitsubishi and Omron.

My first impression was the software look too simple and childish. The software crashed after windows security updates, so I had to uninstall the updates daily.

After I started the programming, everything became much familiar. The Developer version of CCW gave all the tools that I need for the project.

With the ability to program using Ladder, Function blocks and structured text everything looks so perfect. The plant is working for 3 months now and I didn't get any complain from the customer.

I believe the product is awesome and we can expect more in the future.
 
Micro 850 870 are the power houses and the most useful if you want network connectivity. They are usefull at low cost one off machines but are especially good at OEM type applications. (OEM - You make many of the same machine.) Programming becomes a breeze if you are an old hand at typing command strings. (exa... XIC tagname ote tagname) I find that using the direct text editing portion of CCW is the way to go when writing logic. With release 12 the naming conventions can be set to match the Logix (control logix mainly) nomenclature. In fact you can copy and paste code between CCW, 5000 and Vice Versa. If Rockwell would make sharing data between control logix and the micro850 something other than messaging, they could turn it into a low cost very adaptable IO option for the control logix family.
 
Last edited:
My first experience with a Micro 800 PLC was like 5 years ago, it was a nightmare, since the interface was way too slow to program.
This last year I happened to have some projects with this PLC family, and so far, has been a big improvement in CCW, I also love that it's easier in my opinion to establish communication with devices through ethernet, using some libraries that the community have developed.


CCW is like the baby of Studio5000.


The only downside for the ones that doesn't want to buy the license of CCW, is that free version doesn't let you make online changes. Always have to download and stop machine to make an improvement.:confused:
 
In fact the main reason I discourage it's use is that its software is nothing like RsLogix 500 or 5000. If someone has learned 500 they can catch onto 5000 pretty quick and vice versa but whether you love or hate the 800's software, when your application is too large for it, there isn't an easy transition to a larger PLC family.
Since this old thread was resurrected, I figured I would reflect on how my position has changed as the CCW software has changed in the last three years, or more specifically in the last three months. Version 12 finally gave it some much needed improvements, most notably the Logix Theme which makes transitioning back and forth to Studio 5000 much easier.
 
Tim,

I really like your YouTube videos. They are very helpful. Thank you for them.

I just started messing around with the micro800 family. I have A LOT of MicroLogix 1000’s, 1100’s, and about 6 1500’s. Most of my programs use a ton of “bit” relays ie: B3:0/0 etc. for basically “steps” in the logic. Through a lot of your videos I never see you address how the micro800 line deals with the bit relays in RSLogix 500. I have not tried it yet but I’m assuming if I try to convert a RSLogix 500 program to a Micro800 it will just give me a ton of errors because of all of the MANY B3:*\* in my older programs.
Do you or anyone else know of a work around in the Micro800 for this issue.

Thanks,
Splicer480
 
First off thank you for the compliments on my videos...this probably should be addressed in one...

You could simply create an INT array tag called B3 and doing some massaging of the addresses BUT I strongly strongly strongly (did I mention strongly) advise against doing this. In RsLogix 500, B3:3/6 might have been the Cycle Running bit which we would signify by putting a description of "Cycle Running" on it. But the Micro800 uses tag based addresses so we can simply create a BOOL tag called Cycle_Running which is much clearer than B3:3/6. But if you want to stick with the B3 for ease of conversion, then the address would be B3[3].6
 
When I have to convert from an older platform to a new one, I try to keep the old address in the description of the new tag. In the case of the example given, if the description for the address B3:3/6 in the MicroLogix was "Cycle_Running", I would create a boolean tag named "Cycle_Running" in the Micro800 and for that tag's description I would include the text, "Was B3:3/6".
 
When I have to convert from an older platform to a new one, I try to keep the old address in the description of the new tag. In the case of the example given, if the description for the address B3:3/6 in the MicroLogix was "Cycle_Running", I would create a boolean tag named "Cycle_Running" in the Micro800 and for that tag's description I would include the text, "Was B3:3/6".

Good tip Steve
 

Similar Topics

My company built a small test machine using a Micro800 PLC and CCW software. We chose the Micro800 because the machine is very simple. We are...
Replies
2
Views
116
Hi, Is there a way to set the IP of a micro dynamically, based on a variable value.?
Replies
0
Views
148
Anyone use the newer 2080-L50E or L70E with 1734 Point IO yet? I have a customer asking for a setup and I have not found anyone that has done...
Replies
0
Views
354
Is there a way to download the program to a Rockwell Micro810 without using the Rockwell CCW application?
Replies
5
Views
706
Hi All, I am having trouble converting a real to string and keep it to 2 decimal places. I'm sure its a simple solution. Any help is appreciated
Replies
2
Views
250
Back
Top Bottom