Why not use 7.3728Mhz? That is less than 8Mhz, using the LF version it should work; and 7.3728 divides dead on for the most-used baud rates... For small jobs, I use 3.686 and 7.3728 all the time... --Bob James Nick Sears wrote: > If lower power operation is the ultimate goal, a slower clock rate is > advantageous anyway, assuming you have idle cycles at 12Mhz. How slow > can you go before your application suffers? Instead of pushing the > boundaries of operation at 12MHz, perhaps you should be examining your > app to see if you can run slower than 6Mhz. (Assuming of course you > change the baud rate divisor) > > -n. > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > >>> Our alternative is to run at 3.3, but a 6 MHZ which slows down the '57, >>> >> >cuts the baud rate to 4800, and otherwise should have minimal effects. >> >> Is it really not possible to patch the code to change the baud rate divisor >> back to 9600B ? You wouldn't even need the source code, a quick run through >> a disassembler would find the constants to patch. >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> >> -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist