Regarding 18F parts - I was working on a project several years=20
ago and was getting stuck in the various 16F corners.  I changed=20
to the 18F452 part when it became available & have never gone=20
back. The 18Fs are simply MUCH easier to use, and come in=20
flavors to suit ALMOST any application. =20

I have to look into the 30F parts - I have often wanted a dual=20
UART and ended up using less-than-ideal work-arounds to
get there.  A 12-bit A/D instead of 10-bit would be nice as
well.=20

And finally, eliminating the banking for RAM would be the best=20
thing since the 18Fs eliminated paging in the program
memory.  While the 18Fs have the movff instruction which can
hit anything in memory, and the triple index (pointer) registers
to do tabular things, you still have to do most of your work in=20
the WREG. Getting rid of that bottleneck would bring the PICs
cleanly into the 21st century.

RJG

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Jan-Erik Soderholm" <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>
To: <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [PIC]: 18F choices

> alan smith wrote :
>=20
> > Life was easier 15+ years ago when you had only a few
> > choices...
>=20
> Since I got married I only have *one*...
>=20
> > What's the best choice for an 18F family part, not
> > alot of memory required,...
>=20
> And how on earth are we going to know *how* much
> "not a lot" is ?
>=20
> > ...do need a UART and 8 bits of
> > I/O. Low power requirements. Essentially it will wake
> > up, grab some data or squirt out some data thru the
> > UART.
> >=20
> > Thinking the 18F1220.  Comments?
>=20
> 16F628 / 16F648 / 16F88 ?
>=20
> There must be some facts missing since it don't look
> as if you need a 18F at all. Or did you specify the 18F1220
> becuse it matches your "not a lot memory" requirement ?
>=20
> Jan-Erik
>=20
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist