What I'd like to see them do is to place a 2nd usart receive pin on PGD and
a 2nd Uart TX pin on  PGC so there is an instant external use for the 
PGC and
PGD pins, which I normally reserve for ICSP anyway. That would make 
production
troubleshooting very easy.

My experience has been that any PIC with an LVP pin was difficult to program
reliably. I normally use the LVP pin as an output, and pull it LOW 
externally with
a resistor when programming. Just extra work and expense.

Olin Lathrop wrote:

>Bob Axtell wrote:
>  
>
>>I don't think LVP was a very good idea
>>    
>>
>
>It's always made me a bit nervous too.  I've only ever used it once, when
>there was another processor on the board that was connected to ethernet.
>That processor could update the PIC firmware via LVP.
>
>  
>
>>and I don't think it will be with us much longer.
>>    
>>
>
>Note that the dsPICs don't have LVP.  Yesterday I was in a room with 4
>Microchip people talking about future product direction, and none of them
>were real hot on LVP either.  I got the feeling that nobody has beat them up
>about ditching LVP on the 30Fs, and we will therefore see less LVP support
>in future products.
>
>
>*****************************************************************
>Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
>(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
>_______________________________________________
>http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>View/change your membership options at
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>  
>


-- 
Note: Attachments must be sent to
 attach@engineer.cotse.net, and 
 MAY delay replies to this message.
        520-219-2363

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