On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 12:48:59AM +0200, wouter van ooijen & floortje hanneman wrote:
> > The 18F452 will suffer worse than the the 16F628 and the 16F877. at least
> in
> > hobbyist circles for many of the reasons that PicDude outlines below.
> There's
> > an extended instruction set, a modified architecture, a vastly different
> > programming algorithm, and even some modifications to the programmer
> > required. Couple that with a complete dearth of tutorials and a somewhat
> > tough time actually getting parts, and I feel it's going to be a road
> that's
> > going to take years to traverse.
>
> I am working on a programmer, but I am not aware of hardware changes needed.
> Please explain?

Wouter, you have to remember that I'm the LVP guy, so I always look at it from
that prospective. The PGM pin has moved from RB3 to RB5, so no 16FXXX LVP
programmer will work out of the box. It isn't a big deal, but it isn't simply
a software update either.

>
> BTW I think the transition will be MUCH faster than a number of years, more
> like a number of months.

I agree with you that in profession circles it would be foolish not to make
the move. But I qualified it with the hobby label on purpose. I still find
myself in a mindshare battle with the 16F84 with hobby PIC users. I haven't
bothered to discuss 16F87X parts or bootloaders in months. Michael Covington's
NOPPP programmer gets a lot of press even though I personally think it's a lot
more difficult to put together than my TLVP programmer.

The game in the hobby circuit is exposure and accessibility. My thesis remains
that it's still going to take awhile for the 18F series to percolate into the
collective hobby consciousness.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body