OTOH. If you are a hobbyist with a stash of older parts changing to a newer part is always going to be more expensive since, to some-one on $0.00 per hour, a faster development time saves no cash. And when you are developing code as a hobby rather than a job you don't always want to make it too simple. There is nothing I enjoy more than spending an hour crafting a perfect piece of, assembler but that was a luxury I couldn't indulge when I was working On 19 July 2014 20:57, Byron Jeff wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:52:36PM -0500, Richard R. Pope wrote: > > Jan-Erik, > > When you are disabled, living on a fixed income, and you have > > limited resources you have to use what you have. Also just because > > something is old doesn't make it obsolete. If it can do the job why not > > use it? > > The primary reason is that the newer parts are generally architected to > make completing most tasks simpler. They further up the chain you go, the > less you have to worry about banking and paging, limited flash and ram, a= nd > a derth of peripherals, such as not having an ADC available. > > As for obtaining parts, I for example have a rack of 16F1938, 16F1847, an= d > a handful of PIC24FV parts that I could pack up and ship to you in a coup= le > of weeks. I'm sure there are others of us out there that would be willing > to pitch in. > > I wrote a piece nearly 10 years ago discussing the obselecence issue. It > was targeted to the 16F84. However, it equally applies to the 10 years of > chips that have followed. You can find it here: > > http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys/16F88.html > > The basic points are: > > 1. Does it make development simpler? > 2. Does it work in my development environment? As a linux user that > develops from the command line, this is a biggie for me. > 3. Is it cost competitive? > > When a new family comes out that meets these three criteria, I move up. I= n > the last 4 years that move was first the 16F1XXX family. Then the PIC24FV > family. > > So to answer your final question, it's not whether or not the old part ca= n > do the job. It's a question if the newer part can do it better and cheape= r > than the old part. > > BAJ > > > Thanks, > > rich! > > > > On 7/18/2014 12:28 PM, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > > > > > > Richard R. Pope wrote 2014-07-18 10:21: > > >> Jan-Erik, > > >> I don't have any 16f1xxx. I do have 628s > > >> Thanks, > > >> rich! > > >> > > > So do I. But I would not even thing about using them for a > > > new application today. The newer PIC16F1xxx's are so much > > > nicer to work with. I also think that the timers are more > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > > View/change your membership options at > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > -- > Byron A. Jeff > Chair: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology > College of Information and Mathematical Sciences > Clayton State University > http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff > -- > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 __________________________________________ David C Brown 43 Bings Road Whaley Bridge High Peak Phone: 01663 733236 Derbyshire eMail: dcb.home@gmail.com SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb --=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 .