> > Although I don't know the specifics of the PICs' "factory test" area, I
> > would suspect that there's at least one bit in there that Microchip could
> > burn on OTP's and leave blank on UV devices.  If Microchip were to do
> this
> > and document it, it would allow programming devices to avoid destroying
> > window parts (when burning older PICmicro OTP's, it would be necessary to
> > override the feature, but that shouldn't be a problem).

|  Thought that occurs to me is that Microchip could burn this bit on ALL
|devices - /JW or not - in a UV erasable area, and then require that you
|erase the /JW device before first use, at which point you can tell (once
|that bit erased) whether you have a JW or a OTP part.  (Flash parts
|could be confusing in this situation, except the part NUMBER tells you
|they're flash parts, rather clearly <G>)

Requiring that /JW parts be customer-erased prior to use in order to
take advantage of this feature seems unduly annoying, especially with
parts like the PIC14000 which have useful information in the EPROM.

As for the part number indicating that a part is "flash", it'd be nice
if Microchip could include an indication of the part number in a read-
able part of the customer area.  Unfortunately, a die change would be
needed for that to work with /JW parts so that probably isn't going to
happen.  Still, a bit in the factory area that indicated the part was
"flash" might be a good thing, since trying to program an ordinary part
with the "flash" algorithm will in many cases slag the part (turning on
programming for 10+ms is a bit too much I think).