> >> Don't Atmel list the AVR processors as 'Flash' when they actually use
> >> EEPROM technology?.
> >
> >No.  You're mixing it up with Microchip.
>
> No, I know MicroChip did this, but I was under the impression that they
> did so to respond to Atmel (and others) doing so in the first place?.
> Following what has been discussed here recently, I wonder how much
> supposed 'Flash' is actually really EEPROM - and does it matter?.

I think that they did it in response to all the other manufacturers
(including Atmel) offering FLASH controllers.  They didn't want to
change their technology, but renamed it because it is "sufficiently"
similar and makes up a better marketing term.

To me it doesn't matter, because I rarely use PICs.  A key advantage
of large flash arrays is that they not only allow bulk erasing but
also bulk programming.  During development, where I don't need Verify,
I can reprogram a 128kb ATmega103 (>90% full) in about 30 seconds.
On the other hand I frequently read on this list that an 8kb PIC16F87x
needs 2 minutes or more.

I don't claim that this is an inherent feature of FLASH versus EEPROM,
but appearently the real-world implementations exhibit this behaviour.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics