Re: [Comparison] PIC vs 8051

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:28:30 +0000 in comp.arch.embedded, Ian Bell
<ruffrecords@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Pete Fenelon wrote:

[...]

The PIC is a pile of I/O lines and some peripherals with just enough
glue in the middle to hold it together as a CPU. Nobody chooses one
because of the instruction set or architectre... For a long time I

In the applications where I've used them, they were chosen for their
mix of I/O and their environmental specifications. And their price.
As the software guy, I was always looking for better alternatives, but
everything cheaper didn't have the I/O we needed, and everything that
did was _way_ more expensive. I remember one project I asked
purchasing to get a quote for a Cygnal (now SiLabs) part (F300 IIRC).
They came back with about $6.50 at 10k quantities, which was about 5x
the Microchip part.

I've always had good luck with their support as well.

reckoned the only thing that kept Microchip going was Keeloq.

Actually, I never used that.



I do know of other volume applications. They are very aggressive on price
for high volume applications. I found one once in a hair dryer, one in an
electric toothbrush and we actually used one once in a CO2 detector design.

But I agree, they are crap devices.

Actually, they're good, solid, reliable devices with a hideous
programming architecture. Cheap doesn't hurt either, especially in
high-volume applications that can tolerate a little extra NRE.

Regards,
-=Dave

--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
.

Relevant Pages