Wouter, I prefer the option to manually override configuration Bits.
For example; if I'm evaluating PWRT issues, rather than `muck' with my code
to bump revisions, dates, and the device spec, I can simply turn off the Bit
from the programmer. For you folks doing the PC-side software, I do
recommend popping-up a warning box to get confirmation of the Bit change.
I would also recommend another warning box whenever any of the code protect
Bits are set either from a file or the GUI.

   I'm currently doing some beta testing for the Carmacon update to the
Parallax programmer which provides manual control of the configuration Bits.
Carl uses a tabbed dialog control to get at the Bits.

   While I can understand the desire to make a programmer `bullet proof' for
novice users, I think it would be a mistake to remove the manual control
option.

   - Tom

At 08:05 PM 9/9/99 +0200, w. v. ooijen wrote:
[someone else wrote:]
>> In the two programmers that I have designed, I
>> ONLY program the configuration fuses from the hex file.  This avoids
>having
>> to come up with an interface for users to select the fuses and avoids
>> complaints by new users that the programmer only works "some of the
>time".
>
>Totally right. A programmer should just burn what is in the hex file,
>determining
>fuse settings is a task of the assembler or compiler. No user interface
>(except
>a command line or a go button) wanted or needed.
>
>Wouter.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Handley
New Age Communications
Since '75 before "New Age" and no one around here is waiting for UFOs ;-)