Have Microchip gone insane?

[Pommie]

A recent post caused me to download the data sheet for the Pic18F2423. What a completely useless document. It has nothing about the peripherals, no memory map, nothing. How the hell are you supposed to use that chip with a data sheet that has no information.

Microchip have gone so far backward in their documentation that they should sack whoever it was they put in charge about 2 years ago.

Mike.

 

[3v0]

Do not know if you noticed this.

Note: This data sheet documents only the devices’
features and specifications that are in addition
to, or different from, the features and specifications
of the PIC18F2420/2520/4420/4520
devices. For information on the features and
specifications shared by the PIC18F2423/
2523/4423/4523 and PIC18F2420/2520/
4420/4520 devices, see the “PIC18F2420/
2520/4420/4520 Data Sheet” (DS39631).

The micro controller world has been fragmenting for years. That means less profit per product. I expect documentation budget per chip is falling too.

 

[nickelflippr]

Not going to download that data sheet, but the one I have has all the info (preliminary) doc. no. 39755B, memory organization starts at Pg. 59.

 

[Pommie]

So, I have to refer to two documents. If they did a cut down version and a full one I could understand but splitting it between two just seems like a step backward.

When bandwidth was a problem this approach may have had merit. Now, it's just retarded.

Mike.

 

[DirtyLude]

NXP has this bizarre method as well. They have a spec with pin diagrams and general overview and they have a 'users guide' with the detailed info on peripherals and registers.

 

[nsaspook]

A recent post caused me to download the data sheet for the Pic18F2423. What a completely useless document. It has nothing about the peripherals, no memory map, nothing. How the hell are you supposed to use that chip with a data sheet that has no information.

Microchip have gone so far backward in their documentation that they should sack whoever it was they put in charge about 2 years ago.

Mike.

This structure of documents is a ISO/TS requirement. Sometimes it's strange and unwieldy but when an auditor wants it that way you can't say no.

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/05/en021169.pdf

 

[atferrari]

Standards

This structure of documents is a ISO/TS requirement. Sometimes it's strange and unwieldy but when an auditor wants it that way you can't say no.

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/05/en021169-1.pdf

My exposicion to quality standards has been up to now in a rather different environment: merchant vessels / logistics and never in charge of anything related to it.

Anyway, my brother who worked for a long time as an auditor made clear to me: it is up to you what "standards" you will stick to, so your customers will know for sure what they can expect from your activity as long as you comply with them.

If I am wrong, sorry, but I do not know how could be that many others manufacturers of similar products do not carry that kind of (awful/impractical) manuals for their products.

The booklet as per your link does not say any single word about of the organization of the datasheets (the word itself does not show either).

Maybe the "documents" are those destined to put in black & white what is your quality standard (your policy) not datasheets.

The sole, closer expresion you could find there is "The Microchip Quality Manual documents..."

And yes, datasheets in the past used to be good and easy to handle.

 

[nsaspook]

My exposicion to quality standards has been up to now in a rather different environment: merchant vessels / logistics and never in charge of anything related to it.

Anyway, my brother who worked for a long time as an auditor made clear to me: it is up to you what "standards" you will stick to, so your customers will know for sure what they can expect from your activity as long as you comply with them.

If I am wrong, sorry, but I do not know how could be that many others manufacturers of similar products do not carry that kind of (awful/impractical) manuals for their products.

The booklet as per your link does not say any single word about of the organization of the datasheets (the word itself does not show either).

Maybe the "documents" are those destined to put in black & white what is your quality standard (your policy) not datasheets.

The sole, closer expresion you could find there is "The Microchip Quality Manual documents..."

And yes, datasheets in the past used to be good and easy to handle.

You are correct that you set the standards but and it's a big but , you go with what has worked for others to make the man happy. There's too much at stake to roll your own.

 

[Pommie]

My problem with this two document system is that I have to use one document but check a second document to see if the first one is correct or not. Surely, producing the "changed" document is as much work as changing the existing document.

I don't see how it saved money, time, trees, the environment, anything. I do see how it will confuse and annoy people.

Can anyone explain the advantage of this system except for faster download speeds.

Edit, one more thing. I recently needed the data sheet for the 16F727 and assumed that the data sheet labeled 16F7x7 would cover it. Wrong, it's covered by the document titled 16F72x. Did nobody consider this when naming the parts/documents.

Mike.

 

[3v0]

Even without this current thing you had 3 documents.

The processor datasheet

The processor family datasheet

The processor errata

 

[nsaspook]

My problem with this two document system is that I have to use one document but check a second document to see if the first one is correct or not. Surely, producing the "changed" document is as much work as changing the existing document.

I don't see how it saved money, time, trees, the environment, anything. I do see how it will confuse and annoy people.

Can anyone explain the advantage of this system except for faster download speeds.

Edit, one more thing. I recently needed the data sheet for the 16F727 and assumed that the data sheet labeled 16F7x7 would cover it. Wrong, it's covered by the document titled 16F72x. Did nobody consider this when naming the parts/documents.

Mike.

The is no advantage. When a big segment of the customer base want's docs in a format that conforms to their requirement engineering system, the big boss says "Make it so"
**broken link removed**