gnupic: Thread: Re: [gnupic] 16f84 replacement

May be the best alternative to 16F84 is 16F628(a). You can also use the
16F88 (but it does not program under some old programmers). 
Best regards

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### 
Envoyé : samedi 15 juillet 2006 17:08
À : ####@####.####
Objet : [gnupic] 16f84 replacement

Hi group,

The picprog docs use the example of a 16f84 but I hear that's an obsolete
chip and picprog --help doesn't even list it.

So what' s a good alternative for a newbie to use?

FWIW, using the Olimex PG2C.

BTW, for a canuck, what's the best source for PICs?

-MW

Maxim Wexler wrote:
> Hi group,
> 
> The picprog docs use the example of a 16f84 but I hear that's an obsolete
> chip and picprog --help doesn't even list it.
> 
> So what' s a good alternative for a newbie to use?
> 
> FWIW, using the Olimex PG2C.
> 
> BTW, for a canuck, what's the best source for PICs?
> 
> -MW

The PIC16F628 or PIC16F627 is a good replacement for the 84. There
are others but I use the 628 because our local shop keeps a good
stock of them.

E.S.


-- 
Linux 2.6.17

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### wrote :

>The picprog docs use the example of a 16f84 but I hear that's an obsolete
>chip and picprog --help doesn't even list it.
>
>So what' s a good alternative for a newbie to use?
>
The 16F84 used to be the defacto standard basic entry-level PIC, because 
it was the cheapest 18-pin 14-bit flash version with EEPROM. The 16F627 
(or 628) now seems to have taken that place, largely because despite 
having extra peripherals it has been cheaper than the '84 for some time.
-- 
Rob Pearce                       http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of this | Yes, but which self do you want to be?
message are purely   |
my opinion. Don't    |
believe a word.      |

If you are switching, why not try the PIC18F1320. 18 pins, faster, more
memory,
infinitely better stack, multiple memory pointers. I switched a couple
years with
no regrets. I mostly use the 28 pin 18f252 (pin compatible with 16f876)

George

On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 20:47 +0100, Robert Pearce wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### wrote :
> 
> >The picprog docs use the example of a 16f84 but I hear that's an obsolete
> >chip and picprog --help doesn't even list it.
> >
> >So what' s a good alternative for a newbie to use?
> >
> The 16F84 used to be the defacto standard basic entry-level PIC, because 
> it was the cheapest 18-pin 14-bit flash version with EEPROM. The 16F627 
> (or 628) now seems to have taken that place, largely because despite 
> having extra peripherals it has been cheaper than the '84 for some time.

On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 09:07:42AM -0600, Maxim Wexler wrote:
> Hi group,

Hello.

> 
> The picprog docs use the example of a 16f84 but I hear that's an obsolete
> chip and picprog --help doesn't even list it.

Yup. It's obsolete. I even wrote a page on the subject.

http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys/16F88.html

> 
> So what' s a good alternative for a newbie to use?

I'm partial to the 16F88 for hobby use. It has the most memory and the
most features in an 18 pin part.

> 
> FWIW, using the Olimex PG2C.
> 
> BTW, for a canuck, what's the best source for PICs?

Digikey Canada?

BAJ

On 7/16/06, Eamon Skelton ####@####.#### wrote:

> The PIC16F628 or PIC16F627 is a good replacement for the 84. There
> are others but I use the 628 because our local shop keeps a good
> stock of them.
>

16F627/628 are also old parts. The new parts are called 16F627A/16F628A.

Some of the good alternatives to 16F84: 16F87/88 and 18F1220/1320.

Good alternatives to PG2C: PICkit 2

Regards,
Xiaofan

Yes I agree that 18F1320 is a very good alternative, but in replacement of
the 16F84, for BEGGINERS, I think that the best replacement is 16F628A
because it's software compatible. Most of the examples we find on the web
are written in 14bit assembly or in some freeware tools that produce only
code for 16Fxx series. The only difference in code between 16F628 and 16F84
is that we have to disable (One line of code) the analog comparators. All
other code will remain the same.
For 18Fxx the only tools I know that are free are C compiler (from
Microchip) and may be some limited version (in code) from Mikroelektronika.
But most examples written in assembly are for 14bits cores that needs to be
reviewed to work with 16bit core chips (mostly becauseof abs jumps).
This is wy I say:
If you need a replacement for the 16F84 use 16F628A
If you want only to start playing with PIC go directly to 18Fxxxx.

Best regards

-----Message d'origine-----
De : George M. Gallant, Jr. ####@####.#### 
Envoyé : dimanche 16 juillet 2006 00:56
À : ####@####.####
Objet : Re: [gnupic] 16f84 replacement

If you are switching, why not try the PIC18F1320. 18 pins, faster, more
memory,
infinitely better stack, multiple memory pointers. I switched a couple
years with
no regrets. I mostly use the 28 pin 18f252 (pin compatible with 16f876)

George

On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 20:47 +0100, Robert Pearce wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### wrote :
> 
> >The picprog docs use the example of a 16f84 but I hear that's an obsolete
> >chip and picprog --help doesn't even list it.
> >
> >So what' s a good alternative for a newbie to use?
> >
> The 16F84 used to be the defacto standard basic entry-level PIC, because 
> it was the cheapest 18-pin 14-bit flash version with EEPROM. The 16F627 
> (or 628) now seems to have taken that place, largely because despite 
> having extra peripherals it has been cheaper than the '84 for some time.