In the paticular case, just moving to a pin compatible controller is not cheap at all considering all the qualification tests needed and safety related issues (CE marking, Ex and SIL 2, ...). I think there are quite some similar cases in the industrial applications. Anyway we need to redesigned it and go through the expensive process due to the obsolescence of a Fairchild (QT) opto coupler. So I think it is time to change to a cheaper flash part. It is funny that they quote me higher price for PIC16F72 and PIC16F872 and the masked PIC16CR72. So we end up using the old PIC16C72A (QTP) and hope they keep their tradition. One important reason now we prefer Microchip is actually their policy of keeping parts purchasable long. Microchip has lost the cost advantage over Atmel now. Some others say PICMicros has better EMC performances but I do not have real evidence. Perhaps they do have better analog features, but not as good as Cygnal's. For the normal IC, corporate customers would like to get second source but this is difficult with MCUs. So it seems Microchip has a good practice here by keeping their part purchasable really long. Xiaofan >Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:25:38 -0800 >From: William "Chops" Westfield > >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