> There are those who would argue that these days it would better to
> start out with the 18 series.  My current reason for not doing that is
> that the instruction set in Assembly language is more complex and I
> want to start students out with something simpler.  However I am in
> the process of re-thinking this.

John, I understand your reasoning, 16 v 18, but which you use on the
day really depends on what the job is, so why not teach both ?

Although functionally the 16 can do pretty much the same as the 18,
(with the will, IMHO often at reduced efficiency), there are times
when an 18 is the more sensible choice

For example moving data around. The extra FSRs and table commands
are far easier for the novice to understand than convoluted 16 code, full
of bank switching and over-handled data for even something fairly simple
(to our eyes) like string handling. And the 18F's large contiguous RAM
is enormously helpful

Something like the 18F1220/1320 is a good little starter. For general
purpose projects I've a stock of those and 12F675, 16F628 / F88
with which I can use legacy code modules (comms, LCD etc), plus a
variety of larger chips in all the families

Joe
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.