The big downside to using Ethernet will be the software overhead -- both in speed and size. It takes quite a lot of code to simply load up a simple UDP packet for transmission with most ethernet controllers. The reason I suggested the FT245BM ship is that the interface is simple -- you just look at the FT245's FIFO status bit to see if the FIFO is not full, write data to the parallel port/data pins of the FT245 and strobe the FT245 write line. Do this as fast as the PIC can process this loop and you'll get maximum throughput sending data to the PC. Matt On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:30:39 -0500, Cwebber wrote: > Thank you Matt and everyone else. I had considered parallel simply > because it met the minimum data transfer rate and required minimal > external hardware. After reading your comments, I think it would be > worthwhile to interface with USB or ethernet. Both of which would be > valuable to know in the future. -- 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