At 01:00 AM 1/11/97 -0600, you wrote:
>> Bummer, I've reprogrammed my 508 JW parts about 4 times already 8-(.
>>
>> >the FAE stated that I should read the last location 1FF or
>> >3FF before I use the chip for the first time and then embedd this
number in
>> >the source code so it will be the same each time.
>
>Heh... why can't Microchip take the metalization covering the code-protect
>fuse and move it over a little bit so it covers the last ROM location inst-
>ead? :-)

Because there is no metalization covering the code-protect fuse on the
12C50x parts.
(So you CAN erase the code protect fuse. And, yes, I did mean CAN this time.)


  Their suggestion of putting that type of thing in the source code
>is a recipe for confusion or disaster when the user goes to burn an OTP, and
>is just about useless for people who use more than one window part (I like to
>use three: at least one in the eraser, the one I'm testing, and the last one
>I've just tested (so if something suddenly stops working, I can plug it back
>in and see whether I broke something in the software or whether I broke some-
>thing in the hardware while handling the board).
>

You are absolutely right on with the above remarks John. The same problem
exists
with the PIC14000 to a much greater degree. There is also a slightly
related problem with the 16c52. Microchip are not addressing these problems
and building solutions into their tools. (Hint: no "virtual device" support.)

Anyway, I'll shut up now before this turns into a spam.

Jim