----- Original Message ----- From: "Olin Lathrop" Subject: Re: [PIC] Programming a 16f84 vs 16f877 > here before. However if you do go this route, at least use a 16F648A or > 16F88 instead of the obsolete 16F628. For low volume projects, it doesn't It depends a little on Shay's take on development. If he builds a programmer, then the 16F84, 16F84A, 16F628, 16F87x are supported by a wide range of public domain software. Support for the 88, 648A, and 87xA is pretty limited. Non nonexistent by any means, but not nearly as widespread as the older parts. *BUT*, if he gets an ICD2 (best aproach IMO), or a Wisp or EzProg, then you are absolutely right. The 88 is a really nice chip, and the 648A barely costs more than the 628 and has twice the memory. I like the 84A to 628 move as a simple learning step, but once you have the developent capability, the 648A is exactly the same as the 628 from that perspective. Although I personally prefer the 16F88, the change from the 84A is a bigger step, and so a little scarier. Sounds to me as if Shay has been reading datasheets and the like, and if that's the case, and if he can get a little help (maybe from this group), it might serve him well to skip the 84 step and go straight to an 88 and/or 877A. But I've seen so many foks who are scared off by all the I/O choices. I know we differ on this, Olin. And I don't like how many people seem to get stuck on the 84 which is the lamest of the available chips. But I like the getting stuck on the 84 better than getting frustrated and not getting anywhere. At least the guy stuck on the 84 might someday find the project that gets him to try something better, and once he does, he figures out how easy it is to move between parts. The guy who gets nowhere stays nowhere. --McD -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist