Post by thread:RE : PIC16C71 vs PIC16C711

Kerzer Computers <spam_OUTkerzerTakeThisOuTSAMARA.CO.ZW> wrote: > I need the hardware ( schematics ) and software to program these >things. Can someone help me please Sorry, but I can not directly help you. There are many people more qualified on this list to do so. However I also am sitting with a dilemma regarding PIC16C71 now. I'm using PIC16C71's in a Variometer product that I make for the paragliding fraternity. My dilemma is that I now want to start using the PIC16C711 which is essentially the same as the PIC16C71, but with brown-out protection built in. But when I phoned our local supplier they told me that the PIC16C711 opererates slightly different and that my current software may not work. What is worse, apparently some programmer hardware even have difficulty programming the PIC16C711! According to the spec sheets that I've just pulled from the Microchip Web site, the two look identical except for the brown-out protection that was added and its resultant control bit. Has anyone else on the list already made this transition from PIC16C71 to PIC16C711 and did you experience any problems as a result of this? Rgds Werner -- Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 .....wterrebKILLspam@spam@plessey.co.za (work) OR wernerKILLspamaztec.co.za (home) Plessey SA, PO Box 30451, Tokai 7966, Cape Town, South Africa

The 711 may be programmed as if it were a 16C621 with an older programmer. The EPROM space and config word have identical addressing. -Kurt ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE : PIC16C71 vs PIC16C711 Author: Werner Terreblanche <.....wterrebKILLspam.....PLESSEY.CO.ZA> at Internet_Exchange Date: 12/3/96 5:14 PM Kerzer Computers <EraseMEkerzerspam_OUTTakeThisOuTSAMARA.CO.ZW> wrote: > I need the hardware ( schematics ) and software to program these >things. Can someone help me please Sorry, but I can not directly help you. There are many people more qualified on this list to do so. However I also am sitting with a dilemma regarding PIC16C71 now. I'm using PIC16C71's in a Variometer product that I make for the paragliding fraternity. My dilemma is that I now want to start using the PIC16C711 which is essentially the same as the PIC16C71, but with brown-out protection built in. But when I phoned our local supplier they told me that the PIC16C711 opererates slightly different and that my current software may not work. What is worse, apparently some programmer hardware even have difficulty programming the PIC16C711! According to the spec sheets that I've just pulled from the Microchip Web site, the two look identical except for the brown-out protection that was added and its resultant control bit. Has anyone else on the list already made this transition from PIC16C71 to PIC16C711 and did you experience any problems as a result of this? Rgds Werner -- Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 wterrebspam_OUTplessey.co.za (work) OR @spam@wernerKILLspamaztec.co.za (home) Plessey SA, PO Box 30451, Tokai 7966, Cape Town, South Africa

Werner Terreblanche wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Kerzer Computers <KILLspamkerzerKILLspamSAMARA.CO.ZW> wrote: > > > I need the hardware ( schematics ) and software to program these > >things. Can someone help me please > > Sorry, but I can not directly help you. There are many people more > qualified on this list to do so. However I also am sitting > with a dilemma regarding PIC16C71 now. I'm using PIC16C71's in a > Variometer product that I make for the paragliding fraternity. > > My dilemma is that I now want to start using the PIC16C711 which is > essentially the same as the PIC16C71, but with brown-out protection > built in. But when I phoned our local supplier they told me that the > PIC16C711 opererates slightly different and that my current software > may not work. What is worse, apparently some programmer hardware even have > difficulty programming the PIC16C711! According to the spec sheets > that I've just pulled from the Microchip Web site, the two look > identical except for the brown-out protection that was added and its > resultant control bit. > > Has anyone else on the list already made this transition from > PIC16C71 to PIC16C711 and did you experience any problems as a result > of this? > > Rgds > Werner > -- > Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 > RemoveMEwterrebTakeThisOuTplessey.co.za (work) OR spamBeGonewernerspamBeGoneaztec.co.za (home) > Plessey SA, PO Box 30451, Tokai 7966, Cape Town, South Africa I recently did a project that started out with a 71 and migrated to the 711. When it was in beta testing, I had 30 bytes of rom left and no ram. I wanted to add some additional RAM locations for something, so I thought the logical choice would be the PIC16C711. I ordered 20 units for the final version, thinking they would be fine. They were the same price as the 71's. I also ordered a windowed unit to test with. I use the Microchip PICSTART-16B1 on the project bench. When I programmed the windowed part, everything worked well. When I tried to program the One Time Programmable units , I would get a write fault. I had one of the MicroEngineering programmers that I use in the field. It programmed all parts fine. Never could get an answer from Microchip about this. Haven't had another run-in with the part.

At 11:25 AM 12/3/96 -0700, you wrote: > The 711 may be programmed as if it were a 16C621 with an older > programmer. The EPROM space and config word have identical > addressing. > > -Kurt > CAREFULL! There is a trap here. The trap is that bit-7 on a 16c621 is a "reserved bit" and it's programming as a '1' or '0' is unspecified." Some programmer suppliers, including myself, take the view that the programming state of UNSPECIFIED reserved bits mirrors the way it is masked for checksum calculations. This assumption is force on us because the programming specs are never complete but there is a logical pattern that corrolates with what information is available. (Except for the latest programming spec DS30228F where the specified programming level for bit-6 on the 16c6x/7x is wrong! If you don't believe me, check it against the .INC files.) Now, On the 16C711, bit-7 is a code protect bit and if your programmer programs it as a '0' the following nasties occur: You can erase it on "JW" parts, ever! The bit may be programmed before the verifying proceedure, You can't verify it then! (This would be the case on all my programmers.) So, Don't rush to program your 16c711 as a 16c621, check first the default state of bit-7. '1' is ok, '0' is bad news. As for the 16C711 being different from a 16c71, the short answer [IMMHO] is bull! The 16C711 is upward compatible. The only differences I know of are the extra ram locations, faster A/D (16us Vs 20uS I think) and bug fixes. As a last minute guess, there is a compatibility issue with RAM location 7 on some cross ports but I'm not sure if it applies here. Check it and be sure. Jim

"Lonnie M. Utt, Jr" <TakeThisOuTuttlEraseMEspam_OUTOLS.NET> wrote > I recently did a project that started out with a 71 and migrated to > the 711. When it was in beta testing, I had 30 bytes of rom left and > no ram. I wanted to add some additional RAM locations for something, > so I thought the logical choice would be the PIC16C711. I ordered 20 > units for the final version, thinking they would be fine. They were > the same price as the 71's. I also ordered a windowed unit to test > with. I use the Microchip PICSTART-16B1 on the project bench. When I > programmed the windowed part, everything worked well. When I tried to > program the One Time Programmable units , I would get a write fault. I > had one of the MicroEngineering programmers that I use in the field. > It programmed all parts fine. Never could get an answer from Microchip > about this. Haven't had another run-in with the part. Now you got me real nervous. I'm doing exactly the same thing that you did. I developed on PIC16C71JW's and have just ordered 20 OTP 16C711s and one window version. It will arive here anyday now. I just hope my Picstart Plus programmer will have less problems with it than your Picstart 16B gave you with the 16C711s. At least there is also the following consilation by Kurt Kuhlmann <RemoveMEKurt.KuhlmannTakeThisOuTMICROCHIP.COM> : > The 711 may be programmed as if it were a 16C621 with an older > programmer. The EPROM space and config word have identical > addressing. Many thanks to both of you for your comments. Hopefully my fears are unfouned and the 16C71 will work first time. :) Rgds Werner -- Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 wterrebEraseME.....plessey.co.za (work) OR EraseMEwerneraztec.co.za (home) Plessey SA, PO Box 30451, Tokai 7966, Cape Town, South Africa

Werner Terreblanche wrote: {Quote hidden}> Now you got me real nervous. I'm doing exactly the same thing that you > did. I developed on PIC16C71JW's and have just ordered 20 OTP > 16C711s and one window version. It will arive here anyday now. I just > hope my Picstart Plus programmer will have less problems with it than > your Picstart 16B gave you with the 16C711s. > > At least there is also the following consilation by > Kurt Kuhlmann <RemoveMEKurt.KuhlmannEraseMEEraseMEMICROCHIP.COM> : > > > The 711 may be programmed as if it were a 16C621 with an older > > programmer. The EPROM space and config word have identical > > addressing. > > Many thanks to both of you for your comments. Hopefully my fears are > unfouned and the 16C71 will work first time. :) > > Rgds > Werner > -- > Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 > RemoveMEwterrebspam_OUTKILLspamplessey.co.za (work) OR RemoveMEwernerTakeThisOuTspamaztec.co.za (home) > Plessey SA, PO Box 30451, Tokai 7966, Cape Town, South Africa Please let me know if the PICSTART+ works on the 16C711. I have somebody that wants to buy my PICSTART 16B & 16C units. I'm looking at several different companies for a replacement. I may just stay with Microchip and get the Plus model. Thanks to Jim and Kurt for their comments also. I would have already tried the settings for the 16c622 but I programmed all the OTP parts and shipped them out.

04 Dec 96, Jim Robertson writes to All: P> CAREFULL! There is a trap here. The trap is that bit-7 on a 16c621 is P> a "reserved bit" and it's programming as a '1' or '0' is unspecified." P> Some programmer suppliers, including myself, take the view that the P> programming state of UNSPECIFIED reserved bits mirrors the way it is P> masked for checksum calculations. This assumption is force on us P> because the programming specs are never complete but there is a P> logical pattern that corrolates with what information is available. I assume for reserved bits _any_value_readed_ and use this readed value as mask for later programming this word. With this assumption I always can work without errors with all unspecified bits. P> (Except for the latest programming spec DS30228F where the specified P> programming level for bit-6 on the 16c6x/7x is wrong! If you don't P> believe me, check it against the .INC files.) You mean DS3022F-page 9, fig 3-1, bit 6 for PIC16C62/64/65/73/74 ? OK, I check .INC files for this processors from (the latest) MPLAB 3.12: === Cut === ; P16C62.INC Standard Header File, Version 1.00 Microchip Technology, Inc. [...] ;1.00 10/31/95 Initial Release [...] ;========================================================================== ; Configuration Bits ;========================================================================== _CP_ALL EQU H'3F8F' _CP_75 EQU H'3F9F' _CP_50 EQU H'3FAF' _CP_OFF EQU H'3FBF' _PWRTE_ON EQU H'3FBF' _PWRTE_OFF EQU H'3FB7' _WDT_ON EQU H'3FBF' _WDT_OFF EQU H'3FBB' _LP_OSC EQU H'3FBC' _XT_OSC EQU H'3FBD' _HS_OSC EQU H'3FBE' _RC_OSC EQU H'3FBF' === Cut === As you can see, bit 6 is always 0, as stated at the Fig-3-1. The same is for all other PIC mentioned above. I don't see any errors here. You don't need to program this bit, this bit always reads as "0". P> Now, On the 16C711, bit-7 is a code protect bit and if your programmer P> programs it as a '0' the following nasties occur: P> You can erase it on "JW" parts, ever! You mean, some of CP bits _can't_ be erased ? This is documented "feature" for all new Microchip PIC. You can't erase once programmed CP bit for all new PIC. P> So, Don't rush to program your 16c711 as a 16c621, check first the P> default state of bit-7. '1' is ok, '0' is bad news. Correct. Best regards. Alexej Vladimirov EraseMEavladspamspamBeGonemail.ormix.riga.lv http://www.ormix.riga.lv/eng/mchip/mchip.htm More than 230 Microchip links now...

Kurt Kuhlmann wrote: > > Both the B1 and the PS+ support the 711 explicitly. The B1 refers to a 71A part > which is the 711. > Good point. I forgot to mention in my original response to Werner that the 71A is the same as the 711, I guess only on the older programmers. That was what I set the 16B to when I tried to program the units. If I don't get a newer unit, I'm probably going to try the shareware software replacement for the 16B hardware that was posted here several days ago. I have to get a blank chip and go visit a friend in another engineering department that has the wonderful DATA I/O Blow-Em-Everything programmer. :)