Andrew Warren wrote:
> When Olin says that it's a bad idea to use the 16F84 in a new
> design, all he really means is that he doesn't use the 16F84 in
> his new designs.

No Andrew, that's not all I mean.  You seem to be trolling for a pissing
contest.  I would have just ignored this comment except that I don't want
anyone who isn't so familiar with the PIC product line to be lead astray.

The 16F628 does more, costs less, and has the same footprint as the 16F84.
The 16F628 has double the program memory, from 1K to 2K words.  Now there is
the 16F648A which is the same thing with 4K words, and still costs
considerably less than the 'F84 or 'F84A.

If you can do with a few less pins, the 16F630 is a good alternative.  It
has the same code space as the 'F84, 4 less pins, and is a LOT cheaper.
Some of the pins that had dedicated functions on the 'F84 can be reused as
I/O pins on the 'F630.  If you are using the internal oscillator and don't
need MCLR, then the 'F630 only has one less useable pin.

If you don't want to take my word for it, a look at the Microchip line card
shows the 16F84 is a "mature" product.  Even Microchip is telling you not to
use it in new designs.

For reference, here are the budgetary prices listed on the Microchip web
site:

  16F630    $1.20
  16F628    $1.61
  16F648A   $1.70
   16F84A   $3.42
   16F84    $4.39

I stand by my statement that using the 16F84 in a new design is a bad idea.
In fact, it's downright silly.


*****************************************************************
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