On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Allen Mulvey wrote: > When I first started playing with PICs I used Microchip's free tools. It > seemed to work okay until, one day, the code just didn't fit into the PIC= .. I > recompiled again using MikroC compiler from MikroElektronika and it fit w= ith > room to spare. The free version of MikroC fully optimizes but it limits t= he > compiled file size. I ended up buying the Pro version of MikroC. The pric= e > is reasonable and, at that time, they gave $50.00 off if you bought a dev > board or programmer with it. I am very happy with MikroC and I find their > help files to be much friendlier. Of course, they also have an active for= um > where additional help can be found as well. > > My observations on this list seem to indicate that most subscribers are > locked into Microchip products. If this is not a factor for you I would > recommend that you at least take a look at the MikroElektronika products. Hi Allen, I would say I probably fall under the list of being "locked" into Microchip products. I know that MikroC has a large userbase, and I think it's quite cool that they are able to offer a good product. I would like to stick with Microchip products mainly because I already have an investment in dev tools, and that there seem to be more tutorials for them. I might conceivably move to MikroC in the future though. I know that each implementation has its own quirks, but the nice thing about going from one to the other is that most of the code should be transportable, which is quite handy. Thanks! Josh --=20 A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .