From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Gibbo)
Date: 10 Dec 2002 16:12:46 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: PIC experts opinions please.
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2002 14:42:00 GMT, the renowned email@example.com
>>We have a product that uses a PIC16C73B. The powers that be want it updating
>>and a few extra features adding. The current PIC will do these happily but
>>heard rumours that it will be obsoleted soon.
>>Any one know of any truth in this ?
>I doubt it will happen real soon, Microchip did transition to the 'B'
>die shrink on this series. They are pushing the FLASH parts though.
>>We have to do a new PCB anyway.
>>Should we move to another later PIC just to be certain ? If so what would
>>recommend. The 16C73B is using every analogue input and we have one spare
>>so whatever else we use must have at least the same i/os
>These should be drop-in (or very close) replacements.
>16F73 14 bit architecture (same) no real improvements except
> FLASH, ISP,
>16F873 14 bit architecture (same) 10 bit ADC, EEPROM, can read
> its own code memory, ISP, ICD
>18F252 more code memory (32K bytes vs. 7K), EEPROM, 10 bit ADC,
> 16 bit architecture, (requires code changes), 40MHz, ISP, ICD
>I suggest you try your best to add ICD or at least ISP, which
>translates to a small connector and maybe a bit of added circuitry on
>your PCB. You should reconsider your production process in light
>of ISP to see if you should change the PIC package type etc.
>Digikey's 100 pcs pricing, for reference (USD):
>16F73: 3.18 20MHz
>16C73: 4.03 4MHz, 4.32 20MHz
>16F873 4.63 4MHz, 4.95 20MHz
>18F252: 5.07 40MHz
Thanks. I think the 873 looks about the best deal in this situation. ISP will
certainly help in many ways. In this particular application I don't see any
advantage to ICD. The 10 bit ADC would be a nice improvement over present. No
real advantage (for us) in going to the 252. Thanks again.