Searching \ for 'FLASH vs. EEPROM' 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/mems.htm?key=flash
Search entire site for: 'FLASH vs. EEPROM'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Flash vs. EEPROM'
1997\02\27@212956 by Norm LeMieux

picon face
    In college, they taught us that the difference between EPROM and
    EEPROM was that, for the former, you erased it by placing it into a UV
    eraser, clearing the entire device before any one location could be
    programmed to an arbitrary value (not just changing existing 1's to
    0's); whereas with a EEPROM, any location could be erased and
    reprogrammed without affedcting the entire array.

    This is essentially the same as between EEPROM and Flash, with the
    latter requiring erasure of a BLOCK of memory, rather than the entire
    array. This is where the cost savings comes in: since erasure requires
    a different set of address lines than r/w, removing them creates a
    tighter array with more gates per square mil than EE.

    Program memory is USUALLY treated in a Flash-like manner anyway, where
    you erase the entire array before entering a new program, verdad? So,
    no matter what the underlying technology or block size is, you still
    erase the entire block anyway. This, incidentally, is how Atmel's and
    Microchip's Flash parts work.

    Flash (NV memory w/fewer erase lines) doesn't really become
    economically feasibly until array sizes above 512kb.

    Norm LeMieux
    MCHIP FAE/NW


'FLASH vs. EEPROM'
1999\02\13@225304 by Corey Drechsler
picon face
Does anyone know what the difference is between the EEPROM used in the
16C84 and the FLASH memory used in the 16F84?  Not the parts, but the
actual memory used to store the program?  I would guess that it provides
some sort of benefit, but I sure don't know what it is...

Corey Drechsler

1999\02\14@032319 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Corey Drechsler wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the difference is between the EEPROM used in the
> 16C84 and the FLASH memory used in the 16F84?  Not the parts, but the
> actual memory used to store the program?  I would guess that it provides
> some sort of benefit, but I sure don't know what it is...
>
> Corey Drechsler

 Cheaper to manufacture, is the 3-word answer <G>  Thus cheaper for you
& I to buy.

 Mark

1999\02\14@084950 by w. v. ooijen / f. hanneman

picon face
Makes no differenc at all for us.
Probably cheaper for uChip to manuafacture, and the term Flash seems to
sell better.

regards,
Wouter.

----------
{Quote hidden}

1999\02\14@115714 by Sam Powell

flavicon
face
I think the reason they did the f84 was because other chip manufactures were
producing chips using flash stuff in them and Microchip launched the f84
initally to demonstrate its abilities in producing flash pats - it also gave
them an oppertunity to iron out some of the few c84 bugs...


ICQ: 23977120
E-Mail: spwebspamKILLspamglobalnet.co.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: Corey Drechsler <.....drechcKILLspamspam.....RPI.EDU>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 1999 3:51 AM
Subject: FLASH vs. EEPROM


>Does anyone know what the difference is between the EEPROM used in the
>16C84 and the FLASH memory used in the 16F84?  Not the parts, but the
>actual memory used to store the program?  I would guess that it provides
>some sort of benefit, but I sure don't know what it is...
>
>Corey Drechsler
>

1999\02\14@120306 by dave vanhorn

flavicon
face
At 04:52 PM 2/14/99 +0000, Sam Powell wrote:
>I think the reason they did the f84 was because other chip manufactures were
>producing chips using flash stuff in them and Microchip launched the f84
>initally to demonstrate its abilities in producing flash pats - it also gave
>them an oppertunity to iron out some of the few c84 bugs...

5V only in-system reprogrammability is a big plus.

1999\02\14@122019 by w. v. ooijen / f. hanneman

picon face
> At 04:52 PM 2/14/99 +0000, Sam Powell wrote:
> >I think the reason they did the f84 was because other chip manufactures
were
> >producing chips using flash stuff in them and Microchip launched the f84
> >initally to demonstrate its abilities in producing flash pats - it also
gave
> >them an oppertunity to iron out some of the few c84 bugs...
>
> 5V only in-system reprogrammability is a big plus.

Well, it is a plus that only the +5 needs to supply a substation amount of
current,
but a (`14V) programming-enable voltage is still needed! (This holds
equally for
the 16c84 and the 16f84)
wouter.

1999\02\14@232823 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
At 18:14 14/02/99 +0100, you wrote:
>> At 04:52 PM 2/14/99 +0000, Sam Powell wrote:
>> >I think the reason they did the f84 was because other chip manufactures
>were
>> >producing chips using flash stuff in them and Microchip launched the f84
>> >initally to demonstrate its abilities in producing flash pats - it also
>gave
>> >them an oppertunity to iron out some of the few c84 bugs...
>>
>> 5V only in-system reprogrammability is a big plus.
>
>Well, it is a plus that only the +5 needs to supply a substation amount of
>current,
>but a (`14V) programming-enable voltage is still needed! (This holds
>equally for
>the 16c84 and the 16f84)
>wouter.


Yes, you are right. Only the 16F87x parts have 5V only external programming
*BUT* you lose Port B3 as it becames a dedicated programming pin even during
runtime. No such thing as a free lunch. :-(

These parts are runtime or self programmable with 5V only. I do not know yet
if this option requires the LVP bit to be set in the config word and therefore
the dedicated use of B3 as a programming pin.

BTW. To make it clear, there is no difference between the EEPROM of the C84
and the "FLASH" of the 16F84 other than the change of name. It all is
still EEPROM. They are a few differences in the chips but not the base
technology.

Jim
________________________________________
Jim Robertson
Email: newfoundspamspam_OUTpipeline.com.au
http://www.pipeline.com.au/users/newfound
MPLAB compatible PIC programmers and firmware
upgrades for many programmers.
________________________________________

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...