Tjaart said: > >> The thing is, I know what my opinion is based on. I just can't figure out >> what yours is based on. > >The following : >1) All the other vendors have already gone flash. Not Microchip. My > customers want to know why we cannot just reprogram (I mean everybody > does it, right?). When I politely try to explain to them that >Microchip > chose not to go flash when they should have, they tell me : "We don't > give a damn" This is a valid attitude. But not a valid statement. All the other vendors? Where's your list? If your customers want some other chip, why don't you give it to them? Why is this Microchip's problem? >2) All the PICs out there already have ICE capability built-in on the > silicon. Why not use it? Why make people pay $2490 + probe for an ICE > when they can get it for $5 ? (Wait - I think I am getting it) Yikes! There's so much wrong in this statement I don't know where to start. >3) After spending a fortune on development tools and learning curves, I > expect a silicon company to at least stay in the race. The race? What race? You're the one dropping the flag; I suspect Microchip is zooming along at their normal pace, which isn't that different than any other silicon vendor. >4) If we are understaffed, we hire more people. When Microchip are > understaffed, they bring out a "roadmap into the future". This is > nothing other than damage control. Microchip have more vice >presidents > than the damn UN, but obviously not enough engineers. What are we debating, the merits of various managerial structures? If you have a specific complaint, take it to Microchip. (Hmm. I've heard that before..) >5) Many people have mailed me privately because they are, um too careful > to have unfriendly Mchip attention. The only flames I received came > publicly (like yours). This is enough reason in itself. Paranoia? Or the appearance of it for some hidden purpose? Who can tell.. (Its a joke. mate.) >If you want to continue this discussion, go private. > >-- >Friendly Regards (really) > >Tjaart van der Walt Yeah, OK, I'm not disputing the friendly part at all. I have two clearly defined objectives here. First, I don't really see the point of your arguments, unless its to badger Microchip, and this isn't the place for that. You are reaching a large audience that is in part somewhat impressionable. What I hear in the Scenix/anti-Microchip thread is not exemplary of prudent engineering practices. I work for a small company that has had the problems one might expect with the PIC stuff, and Microchip has been responsive to them in an appropriate way. I don't mean that I wouldn't wish the world was different, but they aren't doing anything different than other successful vendors. If you think Scenix will be different, then you can kiss them goodbye, 'cause they won't get through the next round of capitalization. Financial guys like to see that startups know the secret handshake, and knowing the secret handshake leads directly to a company like Microchip and a zillion others. Right or wrong, its the way its done, and there are patterns of behavior built in to these companies that satisfy most engineers needs. Why doesn't it work for you? I don't know, but I don't think teaching budding engineers how the system doesn't work is really what its all about. Which gets to my second objective: I got tired of listening to the tilt of opinion, so I decided to stick my weight on the other end of the see-saw. Maybe the less experienced list members will see a more balanced outlook, maybe not. Having the debate in private isn't going to accomplish that, so I won't bother. It looks more level to me, now, so I'm about to shut up. --Tom Rogers