Jan Erik:

You are quite correct - there was/is no urgent reason to
change to another bootloader at this time. For the immediate
future the 18F452 will handle the product requirements
just fine.  The problem did turn out to be the tools which
are presently available - I would expect this to change
over time.

However, we have been considering several additions to the
product options, and the additional memory space available
in the 18F4620 would have been nice to have.  Combined with
the future discontinuance of the 18F452 product, this was
an incentive to investigate replacement tools.

And, I am forced to admit, provided some "fun" investigating
the bootloader issue, which I am interested in from a design
viewpoint. It just may be that I will add my own bootloader
code at some time in the future.

Be well,
Roy


----------------------------------------------------------------

Roy J. Gromlich wrote :

[snipped background info about PIC and bootloades...]

Hi !
I can understand your frustration.

I just thought that you pointed at the PICs as the
culprit, when it actually is your tools that aren't
updated yet (if ever ?).

Anyway, didn't this thread started as a "replace 18F452
since they have been retired" thing ? Was it really that
urgent to replace the 452' ? I mean, before the new chip
had all tools in place ? Was there other things driving the
decision to "upgrade" to the new PICs ? I'm not saying it
was wrong, I'd just like to understand. It seems from your
latest post that your product uses the new PICs before
proper verification of the tools had been done, well, that is
what it looks like, anyway.

I'll leave this here, since I can't be of any help anyway... :-)

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