>Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: >> >> >> > I know about the IDC2 (and clones), but what other options are >> > there today for the new 18F USB devices ? Since they >> > uses a 32 bytes write block during programming, they don't >> > work with programmers that uses the 8 byte write block used >> > by many of the former 18F's. That is, as far as I understand... > > > >That's correct. The 18F2550 and related use yet another programming >algorithm that is different from that used by the 18F252 and the old 18Fs. >Both my programmers (EasyProg, ProProg) support the new devices. See >http://www.embedinc.com/products. Actually, it isn't as correct as you may first think. The difference in write buffer size does NOT make these devices incompatible with the older 18Fxxx algorithm with the smaller size write buffer. It just means that there are three redundant programming cycles/delays per buffer write. As long as the total address space is Mod 32 then all the addresses will be written to the very end. In fact, when Microchip screwed-up the DS39622D prog spec (page 15) and listed sixteen devices with a 8-byte write buffer that in fact had larger sized buffers, it didn't stop programmers like the WARP-13 and Melab serial programmer from still programming them correctly. (And I have just altered the panel sizes back to 8 bytes and reconfirmed this.) Of course, the programming times are much longer than they need be and there are three other issues that make these 18Fxxxx incompatible with the earlier 18Fxxx programming algorithm however all of these relate to the data EEPROM and config bits where the panel mode does not apply. Regards, Jim Robertson NEWFOUND ELECTRONICS -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist