27c256 | 4K81H | 68HC11A1 | 68HC11P1 | 68hc24 | 68HC711E9 | 68HC811 | 8255 | A2D | ADC | ADC12138 | Am85C30 | BRCLR | Buffalo | CMOS | EEPROM | EPROM | Ethernet | EVB | EVBU | HC11E1 | HC11E9 | HC711E9 | Horray | ImageCraft | IRQ | Keypad | LCD | MC68HC11D0FN | MC68HC11E1CFU3 | MC68HC11F1 | MC68HC711E9 | MC68HC711E9CFN2 | Microcore11 | Microstamp11 | Minikit | NVRAM | PSD | PSD8xx | PSD9xx | PT1000 | RS232 | RTS | RXD | SPI | SRAM | TXD | Watchdogs | XIRQ

"Darrell N." wrote: > Jeez, Robert, if you hate Motorola so much why do you hang > around the list? It doesn't matter if a PIC runs at 40 MHz, a I don't hate M. I'm just royally pissed off that they drove me away with their inability to provide product or provide a flash upgrade path for the HC11. And because I have several products out there with HC11's, and want to keep an eye on where M is going with it. Sooner or later I will have to improve/redesign them and hopefully M will finally have a flash version with at least 16k so I won't be forced to change processors (and code base). > fast piece of crap is still a piece of crap... And I can't see > how the PIC braindead memory paging and RPN logic is in any way > simpler than an 'HC11... The instruction set is simpler so it's easier for newbies to learn. A good compiler hides the banking issues from the user. I grew up on PDP11's so I am accustomed to lots of registers and a more or less flat memory model. I liked the HC11. Yes the PIC paging is a PITA. but once it's mastered, it works with any size PIC. The fact that the opcode operands are in 'reverse' order is nonsequitur. And remember that your compiler and your computer do all the math internally using RPN anyway. > The HC11 has a flat memory model, memory mapped I/O, extensive > bit manipulation instructions, superb timer system, and even > though it doesn't run at 40 MHz, it is very efficient and can do > amazing things in control applications. You don't see the Big 3 All true. And the reason I chose the HC11 in the first place. If I could have, I would have used the HC11 in my latest projects, but they needed field upgradeability and the lack of flash (and availability issues) FORCED me look elsewhere. As I said the first time, you only get one chance to burn me with allocation issues. Once I'm gone, I'm 10 times as hard to win back, and I really did like the HC11 (especially the timers). > (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) using any PICs in engine and drive > train control systems... Having a huge existing firmware investment, and a learning curve, of course they'd stick with M. However PICs are showing up elsewhere in the vehicle (wiper pause control, temp control etc.). > Motorola will be around for a loooonnngg time yet. There is a > clear upgrade path, and the 'HC11 is getting long in the tooth. As have many other venerable processors, many of which are ALSO still available and have large sales volumes. > I'ts been around for 25 years, and is still being used for new > designs today. Show me a PIC that's been in service for 25 > years! So what? The 8051 is even older, and it's sales volumes are still rising. PIC's are also growing their market share very quickly. Is M keeping pace? As I said below, whatever works for you. I'm just telling you why I was forced to leave. With M I have to jump families to get big flash. With a PIC, I just buy the next bigger unit in the family, or wait a quarter, and they have yet another better choice for me. If you're not happy with M, there are LOTS of other choices. Take a look at the PIC line, particularly with their rapid expansion of choices of COMPATIBLE processors. My only real concern is that they are still single source. Robert > > "Darrell N." wrote: > > > Since I abhor the brain-dead PIC architecture, and Atmel > > > doesn't > > > > Not really. Its just a much simpler one. Hence the > > availability of 40Mhz clock speeds. And many cost effective > > variants. > > > > > seem much better, I'll be sticking with Motorola. Probably the > > > > Whatever works for you. But PIC processors will always be > > available. And upwardly compatible (within families). Will the > > Motorola ones? Why are there no HC11's with more than 2K of > > flash? (are there any now? I stopped looking/waiting for one > > after I changed horses). > > > > > '12, but the 908 stuff in some cases is even more powerful than > > > the '11, so I don't necessarily see it as a downgrade. The > > > Nitrons are nice "PIC Killers" for small apps, as well. > > > > Sure. If you are certain that you can get them in the future. I > > have been burned by HC11 allocation problems too many times to > > ever go back to Motorola. While I prefer the Moto architecture, > > their repeated inability to deliver product in a reasonable time > > frame forced me to cross them off my list of possible suppliers. > > > > > Long live Motorola! > > > > Long live Microchip, Atmel, Maxim/Dallas, etc. We need choice and > > multiple suppliers of a given architecture. Single source is a > > 'bad thing'. Burn me once... > > > > Robert

(You need to be a member of m68hc11 -- send a blank email to m68hc11-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )