> Excellent info Matt, thank you. :o) When it comes to
> bang for the buck the 430 might be a good one. It's
> such a shame Microchip don't care about the low end
> of the market. If they stuck a decent 16bit timer in the
> 16c505 (ala 12F675) and bumped it to 5mips on internal
> clock, then dropped the price to $0.50 i'd be satisfied
> even though it is still less powerful than a 430.
> Sure the 12F675 is nice but again it's a case of adding
> new peripherals and keeping the price up, rather than
> introducing a lower-cost part with minimum features.
> Surely I can't be the only designer wanting a fast
> CHEAP micro?? Unless they do something soon i'm really
> feeling like jumping ship. More and more i'm thinking
> that PICs are for hobby use and not for "real"
> production. :o(

There is certainly a place for the "cheap as possible" micro, but
Microchip has to go where the money is.

I don't know how representative the applications that come my way are, but
I find myself often wishing for more peripherals in a smaller package.
I've used a 17C752 at least twice now just because I needed two UARTs in
the same chip.  I would like things like a 16F628 with two UARTS and 8K of
code space.  The few applications I've had where an 8 pin part was
sufficient, the speed of the 12C508A has also been good enough.

Microchip had planned an 8 pin 18F part a year or two ago, but the project
was aborted.  I was told that was because they determined there wasn't a
sufficient market for a high function 8 pin part.  At the time I had no
personal experience that pointed otherwise.  They developed the 12F628/675
instead.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu