Olin Lathrop 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. Clearly. When you tell someone it's a bad idea to use a certain part, you also mean that you know what all of his or her unstated requirements are. You know, for instance, his level of familiarity with all the PICs, his schedule, his projected volume, his inventory, his budget, the capabilities of his development tools, etc. Right? > You seem to be trolling for a pissing contest. Not at all. I'm pointing out that blanket pronouncements like "It's a bad idea to use the 16F84 in a new design" or "It's a bad idea to use MPASM's absolute mode" are silly. Debbie wants to quickly build what sounds like a one-off project. She HAS 16F84s, she KNOWS the 16F84, all of her tools apparently SUPPORT the 16F84, Microchip still MAKES the 16F84... Why, again, is it necessary for her to push back her schedule while she acquires and learns how to use a different part and its tools? > 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. Here's one way to do that while still sounding reasonable: "If you use the 16F84, you'll have to write the IR-transmitter code using carefully-timed software delays, which can be a pain. Here's [code/a code description/my contact info and hourly rate/whatever]. "If you don't NEED to use the 16F84, you may want to look at [some other PIC]. It's cheaper and better [in all these ways], and its built-in PWM generator can make your task really easy." > The 16F628 does more, costs less, and has the same footprint as the > 16F84. I said as much in an earlier message. As you know, though, "does more and costs less" is hardly the only criterion for selecting a microcontroller. -Andy -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu