Post by thread:[AD]: Selling some PIC16F84A? Ditch them.

Denny Esterline wrote: > > > I just thought I'd let the group know that I'm auctioning > > > off a handfull of 16F84A's. Starting price just $3.00 and > > > shipping just $2 for any quantity. > > > > IMHO not a very good price, considering that you can get > > a 16F628A for less. Unless one specifically needs a 16F84A > > of course. > > > > Wouter van Ooijen There were Olin's posts: "Re: [PIC]: newbie question - multiple timers on a 16f84?" > What you need is to ditch the 16F84. The 16F628 does more, > costs less, and is pin compatible... "Re: PIC to PIC communication" > If this is a one off and you just want to get it done, ditch > the 16F84s, replace them with 16F628 (more features, lower > price, pin compatible),... I wonder why 16F628 is most often mentioned as the best choice for replacing 16F84? Why not 16F72? Costs even less than 16F628, more I/O pins. Does this pin compatibility really matter? Mike. -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

{Quote hidden}> Denny Esterline wrote: > >>>>I just thought I'd let the group know that I'm auctioning >>>>off a handfull of 16F84A's. Starting price just $3.00 and >>>>shipping just $2 for any quantity. >>> >>>IMHO not a very good price, considering that you can get >>>a 16F628A for less. Unless one specifically needs a 16F84A >>>of course. >>> >>>Wouter van Ooijen > > > There were Olin's posts: > > "Re: [PIC]: newbie question - multiple timers on a 16f84?" > > >>What you need is to ditch the 16F84. The 16F628 does more, >>costs less, and is pin compatible... > > > "Re: PIC to PIC communication" > > >>If this is a one off and you just want to get it done, ditch >>the 16F84s, replace them with 16F628 (more features, lower >>price, pin compatible),... > Mike Singer wrote: > I wonder why 16F628 is most often mentioned as the best choice > for replacing 16F84? > > Why not 16F72? Costs even less than 16F628, more I/O pins. > Does this pin compatibility really matter? Probably because pin compatability makes it easier for newbies that have hardware skills matching the software skills! :-) David... -- ___________________________________________ David Duffy Audio Visual Devices P/L U8, 9-11 Trade St, Cleveland 4163 Australia Ph: +61 7 38210362 Fax: +61 7 38210281 New Web: http://www.audiovisualdevices.com.au ___________________________________________ -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email .....listservKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

> I wonder why 16F628 is most often mentioned as the best choice > for replacing 16F84? > > Why not 16F72? Costs even less than 16F628, more I/O pins. > Does this pin compatibility really matter? IIRC historically the 16F628 was the first flash chip after the 16x84, and it has the same pinout. Hence it is/was the logical alternative, both as 'starter' and for re-targeting an existing 16x84 design. The 16F72 is more recent, so it has aquired less following. The price is just below a 16F628, but significantly higher than a 16F628A. summary of http://www.voti.nl/picfaq/index_1.html#2 : IMHO the best 'first PIC' is either a 16F84A (for use of all the available designs, info etc.), 16F630 (low cost, reasonable amount of pins), 16F877A (initial development when the project plans to move to a smaller 14-bit core lateron), or (in all other cases) an 18F (for instance 18F452, maybe move to a smaller 18F lateron). Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listservKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body