I'm sure there are many folks like myself, that have inventories of PIC=20 parts that we'll never use. Maybe collectively we could post available=20 parts lists that someone on a tight budget could pull from at no cost=20 except for shipping. I'm sure this would open a can of worms and/or be=20 abused, but it is an idea. Just thinking out loud...... R On 07/20/2014 10:27 AM, David C Brown wrote: > OTOH. > > If you are a hobbyist with a stash of older parts changing to a newer par= t > 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, th= e >> less you have to worry about banking and paging, limited flash and ram, = and >> a derth of peripherals, such as not having an ADC available. >> >> As for obtaining parts, I for example have a rack of 16F1938, 16F1847, a= nd >> a handful of PIC24FV parts that I could pack up and ship to you in a cou= ple >> of weeks. I'm sure there are others of us out there that would be willin= g >> 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 o= f >> 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. = In >> the last 4 years that move was first the 16F1XXX family. Then the PIC24F= V >> family. >> >> So to answer your final question, it's not whether or not the old part c= an >> do the job. It's a question if the newer part can do it better and cheap= er >> 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 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .