> Mike W wrote:
> > I believe the thought process behind the use of the 16F84 was that
> > it is/was the most basic flash PIC. Once students gain familiarity
> > with the 'F84 they can easily? migrate to bigger and better devices.
>
> I think this is backwards.  The newer 18F PICs are easier to program and
> much more capable, thereby making them easier again to use in a particular
> project.  On top of that, the 16F84 actually costs more than newer chips
> like the 16F628 that have more memory and do more.
>
> In particular, I suggest the following PICs for learning or general hobby
> use:
>
> 12F629, 12F675  -  8 pins, actually 16F parts architecturally.
>
> 18F1320  -  18 pins.
>
> 18F252  -  28 pins.
>
> 18F452  -  40 pins.
>
> Unless you have a specialized need or a high volume design, these are the
> only PICs worth looking at.  All of these are also available in
> DIP packages
> for easy prototyping.

        I agree, and in fact, unless you REALLY have a specific need for an 8 pin
part I'd forget about the 12F's and stick the with 18F parts. The 16F
architecture has "quirks" that don't exist in the 18F line and make PICs a
little harder then they need to be for a complete beginner. Once one is
familiar with the 18F family going back to the 16F architecture is MUCH
easier. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
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