Searching \ for '[PIC] MPLAB' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/languages.htm?key=mplab
Search entire site for: 'MPLAB'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] MPLAB'
2005\04\29@194150 by Bob Blick

face picon face

> On the other hand, just using it as an MPLAB
> compatible programmer may make it worthwhile.
>

I'm curious what people like about MPLAB.

I only use it when I have to, and I hate it.

Cheerful regards,

Bob





2005\04\30@052134 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote :

> > On the other hand, just using it as an MPLAB
> > compatible programmer may make it worthwhile.
> >
>
> I'm curious what people like about MPLAB.
> I only use it when I have to, and I hate it.

"Have to" do what ? Write PIC code ?
What do you use when you do not "have to" use MPLAB ?
Why is it that you sometimes "have to" use MPLAB ?
Finaly, why do you hate it ?

Regards,
Jan-Erik.
(Who think MPLAB works pretty well for what it's
expected to do...)



2005\04\30@112051 by Michael Hagen

flavicon
face
Me too, I like MPLAB!

Has a simulator that works somewhat, not all features seem to work,
depending on Pic Device.
.
Directly runs my ICD2 and ICE2000 Emulators.
Directy runs my PicStart+ and PicMaster Programmers.
The PicStart+ has always been my favorite programmer for development.  Does
everything right inside MPLAB.
They have done a good job of keeping up the device list.

I have been using MPLAB since the '80s and it has gotten a lot better each
year.  Other software I have tried is always full of bugs.

Microchips support used to be real good, just a phone call away.   Lately
they have gone to an email system that has not been as good from my
experience.

I will have to throw away a Parallax programmer and Emulator because of no
support.  I have about $1000 worth of their junk.

I would like to know what is so bad about MPLAB?

Mike
Crestline, Ca

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\30@124110 by Bob Blick

face picon face
On 30 Apr 2005 at 11:21, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> "Have to" do what ? Write PIC code ?
> What do you use when you do not "have to" use MPLAB ?
> Why is it that you sometimes "have to" use MPLAB ?
> Finaly, why do you hate it ?

I use PICC, Ultraedit, and if I have a big project, "make". The only
time I use MPLAB is when I want to simulate some code.

I guess since I write code in C, I am freed from having to use MPLAB,
since generally my code works. When it doesn't, debugging is easy
enough through the serial port in real time.

I don't use an ICD or emulator because all the things I do are real-
time, and I can't just break and continue.

MPLAB has a terrible editor, and the whole program is awkward and
dysfunctional(things we expect Windows programs to do, it doesn't).

But I am asking, what do people LIKE about MPLAB? Because I have not
found anything to LIKE. Things to TOLERATE, yes. But not if there are
better alternatives.

Best regards,

Bob

2005\04\30@125529 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>I don't use an ICD or emulator because all the things I do are real-
>time, and I can't just break and continue.

This can be very amusing on a thermal or impact printer.  Things that
draw many amps, and are designed to be on for hundreds of
microseconds.    Then again, I did a switching power supply in software.

I've often wondered why nobody implements "Safe values" for I/O port
pins that would be loaded when the breakpoint happens, and then the
original value restored when you step away.  You would have to
specify which bits and what to put in them of course.


2005\04\30@131152 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote :

> But I am asking, what do people LIKE about MPLAB?

Free. (OK, "low cost" if including the dial-up download time... :-) )
Few problems.
OK docs.
Comes from a pretty "stable" source.
As good support as you could expect for new devices.
Will probably be available as long as the PIC:s will be.
Gives a "professional" look when trying to sell hardware to
educational institutions, no "hacking" to get the tools running.

With that said, I *also* like my UltraEdit setup using Olin's
development environment (slightly re-written using a make
tool), but that doesn't mean that I *hate* MPLAB...

Jan-Erik



2005\04\30@133344 by Michael Hagen

flavicon
face
Bob,

Does the serial port in "real time" beat the ICE2000 emulator?
I use the ICE2000 and an HP 54645D scope/LA when I can't figure out things
with the simulator or ICD2.
I thought I was almost in real time?

How can a serial port beat a real emulator?  Seems like serial speed would
be a real problem?  The bond-out chip in the emulator would seem to be the
right way to do things?

You ask Why one would like MPLAB?
I like MPLAB because it runs all their hardware from one IDE.  I don't want
any more than a simple editor.
I use Microchips stuff because I have had too many problems with others
being buggy.
It supports my 2 emulators and 2 programmers, all without running any other
programs or patching things.
My code hardly ever runs untill I do simple debug with their simulator.  If
I still have problems a break out ICD2.
After that I have to use the ICE2000.  I don't like it because of the cost
of Pods!  I have only need it on a couple of projects, but saved weeks of
time.

I don't write in 'C', so that may be my problem.
I don't see the problems you do in 'C' with MPLAB.

I have started using BoostC in MPLAB and its own IDE.
I have only started to learn it, keep wanting to go back to ASM.

Mike
Crestline,Ca

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\30@134230 by phil B

picon face
Others have hit on many point.  In addition, mplab
programs more chips (via the various programmers) than
any other programming SW.  And for new chips if it
isn't first with support, it will be darn close...


--- Bob Blick <spam_OUTbblickTakeThisOuTspamsonic.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\04\30@140115 by Robert Rolf

picon face
Michael Hagen wrote:
...
> You ask Why one would like MPLAB?
> I like MPLAB because it runs all their hardware from one IDE.

NO it DOESN'T!
They obsoleted the ICD1 for no apparent reason. ICSP is ICSP.
Breakpoint is a breakpoint.
They dynamically change the firmware in the ICD2 when chosen chip family
or mode (debug/program) is changed, so there is no reason why
they couldn't do the same thing for the ICD1 if they really needed to.

How many thousands of ICD1's were obsoleted when MPLAB 6 came out?

> My code hardly ever runs untill I do simple debug with their simulator.  

Unfortunately their simulator does NOT emulate serial ports which
is a real PITA when developing interrupt driven serial interfaces.
(SPI/UART/I2C).

Robert

2005\04\30@152857 by Michael Hagen

flavicon
face
I had 2 ICD1s.
I also have a PicMaster Emulator that is now obsolete,
about $4K with all its pods.  But that was a long time ago before all the
new fancy 16 and 18 flash parts.
They can't haul along old stuff for ever.
I don't even want to develop with the old parts anymore.

Yes,I wish that that stuff was still usefull, but I am going to toss it.  I
at least made some money while it was supported, thats more than I can say
about my Parallax and Sx stuff !

It all about getting old!
Where are you going to find a ISA slot or Serial port on new computer?
We got to move on.

Mike
Crestline, CA.

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\30@162048 by Rob Young

picon face
>
> It all about getting old!
> Where are you going to find a ISA slot or Serial port on new computer?
> We got to move on.
>
> Mike
> Crestline, CA.

Yes you still can but not on the "inexpensive" motherboards, cost you around
$300 for a new motherboard with P4 support & ISA slot(s).  More if you
spring for industrial grade stuff for use in rack systems.

Rob Young

2005\04\30@170336 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Robert Rolf wrote:
> They obsoleted the ICD1 for no apparent reason.

You mean other than it's obsolete?

> They dynamically change the firmware in the ICD2 when chosen chip
> family or mode (debug/program) is changed, so there is no reason why
> they couldn't do the same thing for the ICD1 if they really needed to.

There may well be a good reason.  The ICD1 is very old.  It's quite
possible, even likely, that it doesn't have a flash part inside.  If I
remember right, it's at least as old as the Picstart+ which used a 17C44
inside.

> How many thousands of ICD1's were obsoleted when MPLAB 6 came out?

None, because nobody took away MPLAB 5.  The old versions of MPLAB and the
ICD1 continue to do everything they previously did.  Microchip made a
decision that the ICD1 wasn't up to the task of handling the newer chips,
and USB capability was long overdue anyway.

> Unfortunately their simulator does NOT emulate serial ports

It was my understanding it did, although I haven't tried to use that feature
yet.

I only use MPLAB for debugging.  While it's got its share of annoyances, it
is constantly improving and is a very effective tool for getting the job
done.  I particularly like how the simulator, the ICD2, the ICE2000 and the
ICE4000 have the same debugging interface despite the vastly different
underlying structure.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\30@180605 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
>> They dynamically change the firmware in the ICD2 when chosen chip
>> family or mode (debug/program) is changed, so there is no reason why
>> they couldn't do the same thing for the ICD1 if they really needed to.

The ICD1 firmware is indeed updatable.

> There may well be a good reason.  The ICD1 is very old.  It's quite
> possible, even likely, that it doesn't have a flash part inside.  If I
> remember right, it's at least as old as the Picstart+ which used a 17C44
> inside.

It isn't really all that old. It originally came out in support of the
PIC16F87x

>> How many thousands of ICD1's were obsoleted when MPLAB 6 came out?
>
> None, because nobody took away MPLAB 5.  The old versions of MPLAB and the
> ICD1 continue to do everything they previously did.  Microchip made a
> decision that the ICD1 wasn't up to the task of handling the newer chips,
> and USB capability was long overdue anyway.

I am really not sure why they didn't carry ICD1 support forward to MPLAB 6.
Maybe there is something 'messy' about it and they just figured it was a
good way to kill it.

>> Unfortunately their simulator does NOT emulate serial ports

Yeh. I always thought this was an unfortunate limitation.


Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


'[PIC] MPLAB'
2005\05\01@113206 by Darrell Wyatt
picon face

Although a neophyte, I am impressed with Microchip altogether.
It only makes sense to offer tools ( like MPLAB ) for free.
I'm sure it incurs costs to maintain, but I'm sure that their
component sales ( their core business ) are much better
for it.
Why would anyone spend so much money to acquire a
development kit - specific to a brand of micros - when Microchip's
are free.  It seems to me a marketing mistake....who's chips
will you buy once you obtain the development equipment, anyway?
Due to Microchip and their "generosity" with development
tools, beginners / hobbyists like myself can ( relatively ) easily get
started in the field.  Also free usually equates to more support,
development, etc.etc.  It's the hobbyist culture.  It almost seems
that other micro manufacturers *intend* to exclude beginners /
hobbyists...why is that?

D.



{Quote hidden}

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.


2005\05\01@145311 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> It almost seems
> that other micro manufacturers *intend* to exclude beginners /
> hobbyists...why is that?

I have no dark-side experiences, but others tell me that Atmel offers
software for the AVRs that is compareable. And they have an architecture
that makes a GCC port possible.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\01@145312 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I'm curious what people like about MPLAB.
> I only use it when I have to, and I hate it.

I generally hate IDEs because I have my own favourite editor and I don't
want to learn new ones. But as IDEs go MLAB is not that bad. And when I
occasionally use for instance PICCLite I don't have to look up what
command line options are needed. But for serious work I write a batch
file (for instance when I use C18).

I would love it when Mirochip provides hooks for third-pary programmers
as they do for third-party language tools.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\01@174044 by Darrell Wyatt

picon face


>From: "Wouter van Ooijen" <wouterspamKILLspamvoti.nl>
>Reply-To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspamspam.....mit.edu>
>To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'" <EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu>
>Subject: RE: [PIC] MPLAB
>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 20:53:12 +0200
>
> > It almost seems
> > that other micro manufacturers *intend* to exclude beginners /
> > hobbyists...why is that?
>
>I have no dark-side experiences, but others tell me that Atmel offers
>software for the AVRs that is compareable. And they have an architecture
>that makes a GCC port possible.
>
>Wouter van Ooijen
>

I have seen the Atmel AVR stuff.  Although improving, their "aftermarket
support group" has a way to go to equate to PICs, though.

D

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.


2005\05\02@094232 by Paul James E.

picon face

Bob, All,

What I like about MPLAB.....

1. It's low cost :') Just download it, install it, and it's yours to use.

2. Quality ......... For the price, there are few IDE's and/or assemblers
                     the meet or beat it.  It's not perfect, but it's good.

3. Support ......... It supports the whole PIC line.

4. Hardware tools .. There are hardware development tools that have their
                     control software integrated into MPLAB, so
                     installation and use of these tool is virtually a
                     snap.  Most are also reasonably priced.

5. Frequent updates. It's always evolving.  Hopefully for the better.
                     Not every software producer out there does this.


6. Product cost..... The parts for the most part are inexpensive for the
                     computing power you get.  And readily available,
                     after the initial release.


7. Brand Loyalty ... This last one may not mean much, but Microchip has
                     been good to me by supplying samples and excellent
                     support (both H/W and S/W), and for that, they have
                     earned my loyalty.


So there you have my top reasons for using/liking MPLAB.

                                       Regards,

                                         Jim




{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\05\02@104255 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face

> 7. Brand Loyalty ... This last one may not mean much, but Microchip has
>                      been good to me by supplying samples and excellent
>                      support (both H/W and S/W), and for that, they have
>                      earned my loyalty.

Indeed, but that 4MHz bug of the 18F8720 and 18F1x20 really made me mad..
I bought more than 100 of each.. now what do I do with them???

"Workaround: run them at 4MHz".. INGENIOUS!



2005\05\02@111637 by Rob Young

picon face
>
>> 7. Brand Loyalty ... This last one may not mean much, but Microchip has
>>                      been good to me by supplying samples and excellent
>>                      support (both H/W and S/W), and for that, they have
>>                      earned my loyalty.
>
> Indeed, but that 4MHz bug of the 18F8720 and 18F1x20 really made me mad..
> I bought more than 100 of each.. now what do I do with them???
>
> "Workaround: run them at 4MHz".. INGENIOUS!


Have you contacted Microchip or a distributor (ie Arrow) to see about
exchanging A3 parts for A4 or higher revision parts?

Rob Young

2005\05\02@113329 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Indeed, but that 4MHz bug of the 18F8720 and 18F1x20 really made me
> mad..
> I bought more than 100 of each.. now what do I do with them???

I would have thought that "send them back for a refund or exchange"
would be a perfectly valid option. It certainly would be in this
country.


       RM

2005\05\02@114807 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 10.16 2005.05.02 -0500, you wrote:

>>>7. Brand Loyalty ... This last one may not mean much, but Microchip has
>>>                     been good to me by supplying samples and excellent
>>>                     support (both H/W and S/W), and for that, they have
>>>                     earned my loyalty.
>>
>>Indeed, but that 4MHz bug of the 18F8720 and 18F1x20 really made me mad..
>>I bought more than 100 of each.. now what do I do with them???
>>
>>"Workaround: run them at 4MHz".. INGENIOUS!
>
>
>Have you contacted Microchip or a distributor (ie Arrow) to see about exchanging A3 parts for A4 or higher revision parts?

I originally bought them off an eBay auction.
Moreover, to save space they are packed in a quite artigianal way (some, truly few, may have bent pins).

Q: Should I still contact Microchip? :P



2005\05\02@122606 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>Have you contacted Microchip or a distributor (ie Arrow) to see
>>about exchanging A3 parts for A4 or higher revision parts?
>
> I originally bought them off an eBay auction.
> Moreover, to save space they are packed in a quite artigianal way
> (some, truly few, may have bent pins).
>
> Q: Should I still contact Microchip? :P

I'd ask them, telling them whatever is relevant.
Dead junk is dead junk. Just because someone else discarded them
doesn't mean Microchip are *necessarily* clear of their obligations OR
of their inclination to see their customers happy. I'm sure they'll
tell you if this isn't the case :-)


       RM

2005\05\02@130427 by Rob Young

picon face
>>Have you contacted Microchip or a distributor (ie Arrow) to see about
>>exchanging A3 parts for A4 or higher revision parts?
>
> I originally bought them off an eBay auction.
> Moreover, to save space they are packed in a quite artigianal way (some,
> truly few, may have bent pins).
>
> Q: Should I still contact Microchip? :P
>
The worst they can do is say "no".  But since you didn't buy them through an
authorized distributor, you might not get "satisfaction".

Rob Young

2005\05\02@141032 by Paul James E.

picon face




Mike,

If you're going to toss it, give it to me.   I need the PicMaster emulator
for some legacy stuff.  I'll pay shipping.
Let me know.

                Thanks and Regards,

                       Jim


{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\02@184058 by Andre Abelian

picon face

I use hi-tech c compiler, mplab 2000 emulator  with mplab
It works pretty good. I use complex break point a lot and I
never liked mplab simulator and ICD1 or 2 maybe that is because
of I started with emulator. The only thing I like to know is
what other editors are available besides codewrite that you guys
liked it any software name?    


Andre





{Original Message removed}

2005\05\03@012127 by Bob Blick

face picon face
On 2 May 2005 at 15:39, Andre Abelian wrote:
> The only thing I like to know is
> what other editors are available besides codewrite that you guys
> liked it any software name?    

Hi Andre,

I like UltraEdit. I bought it a long time ago and recently upgraded
to the latest version, which supports folding. I'm quite happy with
it. For most projects I just compile from within it.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2005\05\03@015826 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I like UltraEdit.

my favourite too.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\03@030151 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 04.14 2005.05.03 +1200, you wrote:
>>>Have you contacted Microchip or a distributor (ie Arrow) to see about exchanging A3 parts for A4 or higher revision parts?
>>
>>I originally bought them off an eBay auction.
>>Moreover, to save space they are packed in a quite artigianal way (some, truly few, may have bent pins).
>>
>>Q: Should I still contact Microchip? :P
>
>I'd ask them, telling them whatever is relevant.
>Dead junk is dead junk. Just because someone else discarded them doesn't mean Microchip are *necessarily* clear of their obligations OR of their inclination to see their customers happy. I'm sure they'll tell you if this isn't the case :-)

Thanks for the advice. Should I contact them via their support page (which requires registration):
http://support.microchip.com/scripts/slxweb.dll/external?name=webticketcust

Or is there a more direct/informal way?



2005\05\03@030156 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 12.04 2005.05.02 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Have you contacted Microchip or a distributor (ie Arrow) to see about exchanging A3 parts for A4 or higher revision parts?
>>
>>I originally bought them off an eBay auction.
>>Moreover, to save space they are packed in a quite artigianal way (some, truly few, may have bent pins).
>>
>>Q: Should I still contact Microchip? :P
>The worst they can do is say "no".  But since you didn't buy them through an authorized distributor, you might not get "satisfaction".

Like to say that they produce junk silicon and then they find cavils to not have to fix all of them.. :(

What's the difference if they replace the 4MHz-only chips to me or to the eBay seller? None.. just an excuse not to do it!


2005\05\03@034526 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> What's the difference if they replace the 4MHz-only chips to
> me or to the eBay seller? None.. just an excuse not to do it!

Maybe the seller got them *with the message that they were 4 MHz only*?
In that case there was nothing wrong with uChip selling them to the
seller, so why should they take them back?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\03@044203 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> What's the difference if they replace the 4MHz-only chips to
>> me or to the eBay seller? None.. just an excuse not to do it!

> Maybe the seller got them *with the message that they were 4 MHz
> only*?
> In that case there was nothing wrong with uChip selling them to the
> seller, so why should they take them back?

A potentially valid point. It may be the case, but most sellers are
keen to not let such liabilities out of their hands once they are
known about. The actual cost of an IC is small compared to it's
selling price. You are paying for the development costs and overall
profit targets. Binning parts is liable to be the cheaper long term
solution and most suppliers have learned this the hard way.

Reality check: Is it known that MChip sell any of these parts with the
caveat that they only work at 4 Mhz?



       RM


2005\05\03@045257 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote :

> Reality check: Is it known that MChip sell any of these parts
> with the caveat that they only work at 4 Mhz?

Maybe you could say that after the day they made the errata
sheet available on the Microchip web site. I'd guess that you
can't return any devices ordered *after* that day...

Even if they didn't told you at the time of the ordering, they can
always say that "You *should* have checked the errata sheet...".

It's probably the documentation available (data sheet *AND*
errata sheet) at the *order date* that counts here.

Jan-Erik.



2005\05\03@051910 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face

At 09.45 2005.05.03 +0200, you wrote:
>> What's the difference if they replace the 4MHz-only chips to
>> me or to the eBay seller? None.. just an excuse not to do it!
>
>Maybe the seller got them *with the message that they were 4 MHz only*?
>In that case there was nothing wrong with uChip selling them to the
>seller, so why should they take them back?

Then they should update the datasheet, not just provide erratas 1 year
after the bug was already known. When you wake up in the morning do you
use to check all the new erratas for all the chips you use? Or do you
rather read the newspaper?

Also, I don't think that running 1/10th than the advertised speed is ever
a "feature", or that is something one could expect. Sure I expect minor
problems to appear in erratas, problems that can be worked around and
circumvented by a firmware update in the worst case, not a h/w bug that
makes the chip workable as advertised only if used at much lower speeds..

But maybe I'm the only one? Can you imagine buying a car that is advertised
to reach 200 Km/h but then you discover that it can't do better than 30 Km/h?
"You should have read the errata". Oh sure.. stupid me!


2005\05\03@054958 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> A potentially valid point. It may be the case, but most sellers are
> keen to not let such liabilities out of their hands once they are
> known about.

email sellers too?

> Reality check: Is it known that MChip sell any of these parts
> with the caveat that they only work at 4 Mhz?

I have no idea. I was just answering the theoretical point that 'uChip
should always replace a 4MHz-only chip'.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\03@061543 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 11.49 2005.05.03 +0200, you wrote:
>> A potentially valid point. It may be the case, but most sellers are
>> keen to not let such liabilities out of their hands once they are
>> known about.
>
>email sellers too?
>
>> Reality check: Is it known that MChip sell any of these parts
>> with the caveat that they only work at 4 Mhz?
>
>I have no idea. I was just answering the theoretical point that 'uChip
>should always replace a 4MHz-only chip'.

When requested, always. They are not conform to what *advertised*.
F*ck the errata..


2005\05\03@064501 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> >I have no idea. I was just answering the theoretical point
> >that 'uChip should always replace a 4MHz-only chip'.
>
> When requested, always. They are not conform to what *advertised*.
> F*ck the errata..

If you did not buy the chips from uChip you can't know what was
'advertised' (== communicated to the buyer) at that moment.

And for F* the errata... if and when I feel like answering in that style
I'll do it off-list.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...