On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> > I truly think it's a disservice to advocate beginners starting in a
> smaller
> > box simply due to inertia. Simply put a beginner will have to learn more
> on a
> > 16F84 to get over the initial hump. Hardware generally simplifies code.
> Less
> > hardware requires more complex code. Hardware can asyncronously handle
> > tasks without constant code intervention. Software often requires syncrony
> > and polling to keep track. Then it gets complicated by the fact that the
> 16F84
> > only has one timer, one puny 8 bit timer.
>
> I agree.  In fact I recommend beginners start with the 16F876 because it is
> a full featured part in the smallest package such parts come in.  After
> getting done with the Blinky LED project, most people will sooner or later
> want an A/D, which the 16F628 doesn't have.  The extra few bucks for the
> '876 is small even for amateurs compare to the cost of everything else, and
> is offset by the fact that they are less likely to need different chips in
> the future.

That is certainly a valid argument. In fact I use 16F877 for pretty much that
reason, plus getting the extra I/O pins to boot.

But cost is one of the reasons I push the 16F628. The other is the form factor
just in case a beginner is using something prefabricated that's slotted for
a 16F84.

>
> I think of it this way:  Start with and learn PICs using the 16F876.  If you
> have a project where space is really tight, use the 16F628.  If you need
> more I/O pins or more A/D channels, use the 16F877.

No argument from me.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.