There is a Special Migration Data Datasheet, Search Microchip for 40048a. And yes, If they say what you wrote then they are wrong... Everything is in that Datasheet. 8)
But you will never know the real difference between othe uCs and PICs if you don't try them. That's why many people like to have a lover, in addition to a partner.
I like the 8051 but I'm also learning the PIC now.
My first conclusion is not to go for the least component programmer or one that "steals" power from the ports. A proper programmer with voltage regulator can save a lot of time. Will go for one with the parallel port design.
But you will never know the real difference between othe uCs and PICs if you don't try them. That's why many people like to have a lover, in addition to a partner.
I like the 8051 but I'm also learning the PIC now.
My first conclusion is not to go for the least component programmer or one that "steals" power from the ports. A proper programmer with voltage regulator can save a lot of time. Will go for one with the parallel port design.
Well PICs are not the first MCUs I am in contact with. I was learning x51 for a while, but then I dropped it and switched to PICs. And for programmer, read the USB programmers topic, where I uploaded (crapy) scheme of my ICD2 (powered from adapter ofcourse).
It is difficult to run out of stack with X51 and you can have different interrupts and subroutines working at the same time. I always do not understand why there is only 8-level stack. It does not have to be many more, 16 is very very much better.
And for programmer, read the USB programmers topic, where I uploaded (crapy) scheme of my ICD2 (powered from adapter ofcourse).
Problem with USB is the need to generate the HV needed for HV programming, software availability and upgrade and a special chip needed to do the hardware interfacing between PC and programmer.
Problem with USB is the need to generate the HV needed for HV programming, software availability and upgrade and a special chip needed to do the hardware interfacing between PC and programmer.
Basically the 628A is just a later silicon revision of the 628, as the 84A was of the 84. Unlike the 877A (which is FLASH) the 628A is still an EEPROM device, as the Migration document shows, the differences are very slight.
Basically the 628A is just a later silicon revision of the 628, as the 84A was of the 84. Unlike the 877A (which is FLASH) the 628A is still an EEPROM device, as the Migration document shows, the differences are very slight.
MicroChip followed Atmel, in advertising their EEPROM devices as FLASH, FLASH has become a popular buzz word - and is incorrectly used by most manufacturers.
AFAIK, the first 'FLASH' devices from MicroChip were the 16F876A and 16F877A - and they use a different programming algorythm to the normal EEPROM devices, since those there are a number of other true FLASH PIC's as well, but the 16F628A uses the normal EEPROM algorythm.
Basically, 'FLASH' is mostly used as an advertising ploy, it sells more devices than correctly calling them 'EEPROM'.