On Nov 9, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:

> even longer and want the potential to get lower cost in the long run.
> The particular device used was PIC16C72A since another automotive
> electronics giant also was using it. Luckily I did not choose the
> similar ATMEL AVR part now already obsolete. But still we can no
> longer reduce the cost further since Microchip moves on to promote
> Flash based MCU.

Ok, I don't get it.  Both the 16C72 and the discontinued AVR equivalent
have pin-compatible replacements in more modern and cheaper technology.
Keeping a particular part purchasable forever is more of a vendor 
decision
than a part-number decision.  Microchip does it, Atmel doesn't.  In 
either
case, the cost of conversion to a newer part is relatively low.  That's
the advantage of a vendor with a processor family rather than just point
products, perhaps.

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist