16F54
Moderator: Benj
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:51 pm
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
- Contact:
16F54
Wanted to start a project this evening using PIC16F54 due to its extremely low cost (under 50p) and found there was no 16F54 chip definition file? Just wondering why this isn't included as its not a new device and quite popular due to its pricing. Is it possible to get a definition file for this device?
-
- Matrix Staff
- Posts: 9520
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:27 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, UK
- Has thanked: 2585 times
- Been thanked: 3815 times
- Contact:
Re: 16F54
Hi crispin12,
The definition file is there: Reason for cheapness is it's very limited.
You Will probably get frustrated developing projects for this device.
Martin
The definition file is there: Reason for cheapness is it's very limited.
You Will probably get frustrated developing projects for this device.
Martin
Martin
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:51 pm
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
- Contact:
Re: 16F54
I'm using 7.1.1.0 and several of the pics shown in your screen shot aren't there for me. Matrix must have added them after 7.1.1.0. At least I know I can get them if I run the update. BTW I agree re. your comments. I spent a few hours last night going through the data sheet and found several limitations that have caused me to rethink my choice. Currently looking at 16F1507 as it has more i/p o/p and a more sophisticated hardware stack level. The 16F1507 is still around 50p in qty. and is huge leap in performance and features compared with the 54.
Thanks again for your reply.
Thanks again for your reply.
-
- Matrix Staff
- Posts: 9520
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:27 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, UK
- Has thanked: 2585 times
- Been thanked: 3815 times
- Contact:
Re: 16F54
Not a problem.
Yes, 16F1507 would be the better alternative.
Good luck with your projects.
Martin
Yes, 16F1507 would be the better alternative.
Good luck with your projects.
Martin
Martin