Hi there,

does anyone here know whether these old Intel 8748/8749 PICs are still
available anywhere? Germany preferred. And, is there any more modern
PIC ou there which is code and pin compatible to this old PIC?

Please advise.

TIA
Joachim

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:16:27 +0100, the renowned Joachim Wunder
<Joachim_Wunder@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

You might be able to find some ancient used or NOS ones around, but
they have not been manufactured for nigh onto a decade.

I don't think so. You'll have to re-write the code, which shouldn't be
such a big deal for 1K or 2K of object code. The 8051 series is the
most similar currently available family, but it doesn't have the same
pinout.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Joachim Wunder wrote:
8748/8749 are microcontrollers. PIC is a name more usually refering to
any/all uC devices from Microchip.

You can still buy 8748/8749, a quick web search shows a number on
http://www.hrent.com/
from Intel, NEC, etc

- but probably not with a RoHS certificate

I do not know of any FLASH uC that is 8048 opcode compatible, the
89C51 (very widely available) is a good superset, but you will
need to re-assemble the code, and re-code portions of it.
Pin compatible you would do with a small PCB,
and an SMD 89C51 variant.

-jg

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:16:27 +0100, Joachim Wunder
<Joachim_Wunder@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

Hi there,

first of all thanks a mil for the both responses I got so far.

Quick question in addition: Seems I have a I²C next to the Intel
8748/8749 microcontroller on the PCB of my garage door opener. Hmmm,
unfortunately the I²C´s type isn´t readable at all. Well, do you
happen to have any idea which I²C components were preferrably used in
conjunction with a 8748/8749 microcontroller?

TIA
Joachim

Joachim Wunder wrote:
Count the pins, and determine which are Vcc/Gnd/SCL/SDA, and then
look at Philips web site - common candiates would be i2c Clocks (8 pins)
IO expanders (not sure if a garage door opener would _need_ IO expansion
? ) or maybe an ADC device....

-jg

Jim Granville wrote:


AFAIK "PIC" is a generic name which stands for "Programmable Interface
Controller". Microchip just used it for their line of parts, because
that's what they were designed to do.

Some historian (or someone who was there at the time) would have to
double-check my recollection.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:16:21 -0800, the renowned Tim Wescott
<tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

Generic? Not if AZ Microchip have any say about it---

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...ate=ha80tg.3.3


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:


--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Tim Wescott wrote:
Close, but not quite.
The original (c1975) part from General Instruments was called a
"Peripheral Interface Controller", and it was mask NMOS.
It was smaller than most cores at the time, and was one of the
first out the gate, as an EPROM part, because the die impact was less.
The parts became one of the drivers of the shift to EPROM for production
devices.
Microchip now tag everything they make a PIC, even tho the "Peripheral
Interface Controller" hardly applies to the newest parts.
Helps with branding, and bragging rights.

-jg

Tim Wescott wrote:

Once I was asked if I can work with the PIC controllers made by AVR.
Literally. Of course what they meant was Atmel AVR.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

Here we have two independant examples of Generic use of 'PIC', so
does that mean Microchip looses copyright protection, as it
appears to have passed into general (mis)use ?

-jg

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
is exactly "-- " alone on a line. Possibly you are failing to
configure Netscape properly, with a separate sig file? You are
also failing to preserve attributions for quoted material. These
trivial things make it easier for all.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:16:21 -0800, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

My first exposure to the term 'PIC' was with the Intel 8259. And that
was in 1981, I think. Of course, my experience doesn't prove that
'PIC' might not have been used elsewhere -- and Microchip chips were
only used in things like rice cookers before they made the decision to
start selling them to smaller quantity buyers and finally and
gradually opened their hands on the information spigot the last half
of the 1980's.

(Note: I couldn't use the link that Spehro offered at USPTO.)

Jon

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:45:48 +1300, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

I just checked my 1991 copy of Intel's 8-bit embedded controllers book
(yes, sadly, my earlier copies are probably lost in some boxes
somewhere deep in my 'Raider's of the Lost Arc' warehouse) and don't
find the use of 'PIC' associated with the 8748/8749. This makes me
wonder if PIC was a term they used and later dropped??

Now that I'm looking.... whatever happened to the nifty 8243 I/O
expander? Is it dead?

Jon

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:54:09 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Ark..

The OP must be wondering what the hell you all are talking about.

To the OP:

No, you can not get a modern controller chip that will drop into an 874x
socket.

Making a chip adapter that will follow the correct pin out (i.e. power,
crystal, etc) would first need to be done.

Code for the 874x can only run on a 874x. There is no other way.

Good Luck

You will need it.

Donald

PS: If you would like to discuss the differences between an 874x and any
moder controller chip, please ask again.

PPS: To ask such a question, you must be looking to give a legacy
product new life. After working on a 68hc11 legacy product last October
(assembly code) I would say , it better be worth a lot of money to both
the customer and the manufacture. It would be cheaper to redesign the
system with a modern controller chip in mind.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:16:21 -0800, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

"PIC" sounds to me like Peripherals Interface Controller, which were
implemented with discrete 74xx ICs or TTL bit slice processors (or
even just state machines).

Paul

Donald wrote:
Not really, I gave a reply similar to yours, less than an hour after the
OP posted. The rest is musings on history

I also pointed out that the nearest controller is the 80C51 family.
You can port 8048 code to an 8051 with a moderate amount of effort.
We even did some 80C51 macros years ago, to make this even easier.
Mostly the 80C51 is a superset. Peripheral control differs.

It is not clear the OP has code, from his subsequent question it rather
sounds as tho he is trying to fix an old garage door opener.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:43:03 GMT, the renowned Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

*That* PIC is/was "Programmable Interrupt Controller". Different
kettle of worms. Microchip seems to stick the RT on PIC every time
they use it, and my understanding is that their legal department is on
anybody who uses it *commercially* without permission like a Doberman
on a steak.
http://www.dontronics.com/sptoc.html

P.S. A more disputed question is what exactly PIC originally stood
for. IIRC, there are at least two competing claims, each with some
merit. The current answer is that it doesn't stand for anything.

Re USPTO:

Here's the record that my (apparently expired) search found:


Word Mark PIC
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021. G & S: Electrical
Apparatus-Namely, Integrated Circuit Chips. FIRST USE: 19760600. FIRST
USE IN COMMERCE: 19760600
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 73264319
Filing Date June 2, 1980
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition August 18, 1981
Registration Number 1176995
Registration Date November 10, 1981
Owner (REGISTRANT) General Instrument Corporation CORPORATION
DELAWARE 767 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10153

(LAST LISTED OWNER) MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED CORPORATION BY
ASSIGNMENT, BY ASSIGNMENT, BY CHANGE OF NAME, BY CHANGE OF NAME, BY
ASSIGNMENT DELAWARE 2355 WEST CHANDLER BLVD. CHANDLER ARIZONA 85224
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record BRADLEY W. GROUT
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20020219.
Renewal 2ND RENEWAL 20020219
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:05:42 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

Perhaps. I'm generally ignorant of detailed law and particularly
ignorant of trademark law. Is the use of PIC a transgression of
Microchip's trademark use, if it means "programmable interrupt
controller?" In other words, does Microchip claim the use of PIC™ or
PIC® a violation of Microchip's trademark, even when a word is
changed?

I've no idea.

Do you mean ™ or ®? (If the symbols survive to your viewer.)

Odd.

So then Microchip would hold that Intel's use was/is infringing, since
they bought or became Microchip from General Instruments and owned the
term as early as 1976?

It's not clear to me.

Thanks!

Jon