Jan-Erik Soderholm XA (TN/PAC) wrote:

> Rob Hamerling wrote :
>
>>So for a PIC programmer it may not be a problem if a 16F767 and 16F777
>>would use the same ID. The reason that I mentioned the 28-pins DIP
>>package was to say that I'm sure it is _not_ a 16F777 (I didn't
>>mention it, but it has also 16F767 printed on the body!).
>
>
> You say that the fact that the 16F767 and the 777 are sharing the
> same ID isn't a (major) problem (if they, from the programmers point
> of view, are the "same"). Fine.

I didn't say these PICs *are* sharing the same ID! I said *would* use
the same ID.  As far as my knowledge of English goes this means
something like 'suppose' they use the same ID.
I don't have a 16F777 to check *if* the IDs are the same. Stronger I
expect 'm to be _not_ the same, because the datasheets specify different
IDs.

> Then you say that the fact that the 767 reads an ID that is
> documented to be a 777 is an error, right ?

Right, most likely a documentation error.

> Isn't that a contradiction in a way ?

No. Because I think the IDs should be different.

> If they *do* share ID, how could you use the ID to separate them?

I don't think you can.

> Just trying to learn here... :-)

I'm afraid I'm not a good teacher, but I'll try (to be patient) ;-)

Regards, Rob.


--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL phone +31-347-322822
homepage: http://www.robh.nl/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads