At 10:57 AM 24/10/97 PST8, you wrote:
>     I was talking to a salesman the other day about up-integrating my
>     design.  He represented ATMEL and claimed that the AT90S1200 is
>     equivalent to the PIC16C84.  I noticed his lips moving which makes
>     me doubt the validity (i.e. How do you know if a salesman is Lying?
>     answer: His lips are moving).
>
>     Does anyone have experience with this part or company?  How about
>     code compatibility?

code compatibility: NO
code memory size: 1/2 of C84, (== 600..700 PIC Words)
RAM Size: 32 Words ( ie less than 36 words on C84)
EEPROM Size: 64 (Same as C(F)84)
Power Consumption >> PIC
Speed >> PIC
Internal RC, yes, External NO
Stack 3 Level! against 8 in C84
Device Programming simpler than PIC (no 12 V needed)

for AT90S1200 applications look
http://arbasic.com/appnotes

as of the salesman talk: he was lying and he was not lying-

not lying: PIC16C84 is _closest_ equivalent to AT90S1200
lying: not all PIC16C84 designs fit into AT90S1200 (many do)

antti
http://avrbasic.com         -- AVR Basic Compiler
http://sistudio.com/bswfe   -- Basic Stamp Windows Front End