At 16:07 10/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>|I miss the 16F472 because of his lower
>|pincount - my target application has only few room to stay, and while
>|I4m somewhat lazy, I liked
>|the build-in peripherals - and a 12C67X - well could have 4 more pins
>
>I'd guess that Microchip may have decided on a different course
>for 14-pin offerings, starting with the 16C505 (a 12C509 with a
>little more RAM and 6 more I/O's).  I'd guess that if that takes
>off they'd likely come up with a similarly-extended 12C671.
>
>OTOH, what I'd sorta like to see would be for MCHIP to introduce
>18-pin parts with the built-in oscillator.  This would allow two
>more I/O's to be added to existing designs while maintaining pin
>compatibility (ever wanted to add a new feature to an existing
>product and wished desperately for another I/O pin or two?)  Maybe
>it's just my upbringing, but somehow 18 pins seems like the right
>size for a micro...

Well, I know there are planned 14-pin parts in the 14-bit core variety.
Internal OSC and MCLR so you are only one short of the total available on
the existing 18-pinners.

Footprint wise they are similar to the 18-pinners when top justified.  (Use
same programming pins anyway.) They do not follow the foot print for the
16C505 which is an extended 8-pinner.

Jim



--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robertson
Email: newfound@pipeline.com.au

http://www.pipeline.com.au/users/newfound
--------------------------------------------------------