Topic tag change

Anyway, from my experience, the reason the SX chips aren't doing quite
as well has a lot to do with Ubicom (the manufacturer). They introduced
a couple of new lines of chips, the IP2000 and IP3000 series, and have
all but dropped support for the SX line. The new lines are doing
wonderfully, in fact they are used in a lot of the cable/dsl routers and
access points out there. As a result, the SX isn't that well supported.
As an example, there have been errors in the datasheet, and it hasn't
been updated in years. All the support for the chip is community based,
ie here, sxlist.com, and to a much much lesser extent the web forums at
Ubicom. I think there is a yahoo group too, but I don't remember.

Josh

--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
        -Douglas Adams


"Alan B. Pearce" wrote:
> hang on a minute. Is this not what happens with the SX series chips and
> their "virtual peripherals"? If so why are they not walking all over the PIC
> line? The basic chips are faster, and yet they do not seem to be making
> headway, rather falling by the wayside as an "also ran".

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