Hi Tim (Tim Crist), in <9709248777.AA877715988@CCGATE.HAC.COM> on Oct 24 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?

I have used both the PIC16C84 and the AT90S1200 (although only once so
far).  The S1200 is faster (16M instruction cycles vs 2.5M for the PIC) but
not all instructions are one-cycle.  The PIC is more straight forward.

The S1200 has less program memory (only 512 asm commands vs 1024) which
makes several uses impossible, ie storing text messages lets you run out of
memory quickly.

Unfortunately the S1200 can't be RC-clocked at full speed.

Considering the S1200 is cheaper (only 40% of PIC price here) it is a good
choice for new projects.  I really like ATMEL, I used their AT89C52 and a
GAL equivalent already.

On the other hand there's room for improvment.