>
> > > Use a Scenix!!!
> >
> > Does a Scenix work with PIC software and tools? Can I program it with my
> > existing programmer?
>
> Admittedly, no, but you could build the programmer on my web page at
>
>         http://www.codepuppies.com/~ben/sens/pic/sx
>
> Costs next to nothing. The instruction set is exactly the same as the
> low-end PICs, although there are two different "notations" floating
> around - assemblers are available for either. I believe Al Williams
> also has a header file that converts from one (PIC style) to the other
> (Parallax style).

And you have source! That's the ticket. Also it's a flash part like the 16C84
and so it doesn't require an eraser.

I went to Scenix's site and I'm viewing the In-system-programming document:

http://www.scenix.com/support/specs/prog_spec.pdf

It looks not too difficult to build/write a programmer for it. Also since yours
jumpstarts from a 16C84 (for which I have a programmer). That's cool.

Lastly it uses the same instruction set as the PIC. So all my tools I have
on my Linux box still works. Excellent.

>
> > > They can run at 50 MIPS, you can do multiple UARTS in software,
> > > and thus configure your UARTS to behave however you like!!! And they're
> > > dirt-cheap. No external hardware!
> >
> > But how much does it cost to change my environment to develop with one?
>
> The programmer is cheap, many dev tools are available as free/shareware,
> and the chips cost around 5 bucks. They have some strange little
> idiosyncracies, but in terms of raw power they're pretty awesome.
>
> There is an application note on Scenix's web site for doing 8
> simultaneous 9600bps UARTS *in software*. If your choices are between
> using one single low cost chip to do all your UARTS, or sticking
> a bunch of external UARTS (or PICs) in your circuit, I'd certainly
> go with the former.

Given the circumstances I agree. The Scenix looks like the ticket because
it acts like a big fast PIC.

BAJ