I would agree.  Achitecturally speaking, the AVR's are FAR superiod. =20
The pic is working off a design atleast 15 years old.  The downside of=20
course is that the atmels are difficult to get, and of course they're a=20
bit more expensive because they are better chips.

Either one will work fine for most projects.  If you want to play around=20
with =B5Controllers for the first time out, lmk and I could probably hook=
=20
you up with a devboard for under $50 with an ATMega 128 on it. =20

-Shawn

Mark Jordan wrote:

>        Hi Andre,
>
>        I did that move some years ago. Never regretted.
>        I can tell you my reasons, but they couldn't be very
>significant to you:
>
>        1. More speed, almost 1 MIPS/MHz.
>        2. No memory bank switching.
>        3. Not only one accumulator but lots of them to work with.
>        4. Very resourceful assembly language.
>        5. Multiply instructions (8x8) in TWO clock cycles!
>
>        Last week I had to do a rework on an old PIC design.
>        Boy, I missed the AVR that week!
>
>        Mark Jordan
>
>On 15 Apr 2004 at 18:38, Andre Thomas wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Has anyone ever considered moving from PIC to Atmel AVR's ? If so, what
>>are good reasons to move ?
>>
>>I am thinking that there's a few advantages in the development tools
>>available, but then I am making an uninformed statement... Anyone else
>>willing to shed an enlightended opinion?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Andre Thomas
>>
>>--
>>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>>mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
>>   =20
>>
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
> =20
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu