> diff -r 304de47def80 -r a32746baf828 Boot87J50Family.c
> --- a/Boot87J50Family.c        Thu Nov 04 21:50:36 2010 +0000
> +++ b/Boot87J50Family.c        Thu Nov 04 21:54:38 2010 +0000
> @@ -304,6 +304,13 @@
>                                          break;
>                                  }
>
> +                                // Make sure programming buffer contains a multiple of WORDSIZE bytes of data
> +                                while ((BufferedDataIndex % WORDSIZE) != 0) {
> +                                        ProgrammingBuffer[BufferedDataIndex] = 0xFF;
> +                                        BufferedDataIndex++;
> +                                        ProgrammedPointer++;
> +                                }
> +
>                                  WriteFlashSubBlock();
>                                  ProgrammedPointer = InvalidAddress;                //Reinitialize pointer to an invalid range, so we know the next PROGRAM_DEVICE will be the start address of a contiguous section.
>                                  BootState = Idle;

> >> and PICs have far better peer to peer support than other
> >> product lines.
> >
> > That's OK for small time stuff, but things change when big time designs
> > are involved, where you need an FAE at 1am because a new bug was just
> > discovered. Peer to peer support is great, but it's not enough.
>
> I would say that ... this is unrealistic to expect without a pretty
> solid mutual understanding / relationship with a person at the vendor.
> And this isn't going to happen unless you're a (serious potential) big
> customer, or what you're doing is strategic for them.  

> Carl Denk wrote:
>    
>> I as a hobbiest have been bitten by this more than once.
>>      
> Shame on you, at least after the first time.
>
>    
>> I probably should take my little business elsewhere.
>>      
> That would be silly, at least for the reason you cited.  Microchip has smart
> and talented people designing their chips.  The issue is not with the PICs,
> but with the example code.  It's not clear other manufacturers give you any
> better code, and PICs have far better peer to peer support than other
> product lines.
>
> What it comes down to is the micrcocontroller manufacturer is not going to
> do your project for you.  They make free code available for sales reasons..
> When you get bitten by this code, the fault is not theirs but yours.
>
>    
>> Could you imagine if one of the major auto makers did similar.
>>      
> No, since there is no reasonable analogy.  A car is a finished product
> intended for the masses.  A microcontroller is a component intended to be
> designed into a circuit by someone with specialized knowledge and training.
> Don't blame the microcontroller just because too many morons without the
> specialized knowledge and training attempt it anyway.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

> First before they publish something it should receive some basic testing
> to prove the work. Then it should without modification do that basic
> task on the specified chip(s). If it has not been tested, then that
> should be stated up front, as untested, buyer beware.(although the
> software is free, it is part of the marketing area, to entice one to
> purchase the product.) Unfortunately one needs to purchase the product,
> and likely other items say like a Pickit, being lead down a fraudulent
> path to find that out. I don't think that's out of line. If that basic
> operation doesn't happen, then misrepresenting the product, a
> combination of the software and/or hardware, that's fraud! What the
> competition does, is their issue, not to be construed as an industry
> standard, that makes the situation OK.
>
> As for bitten more than once, that was when I was a newbie, and assumed
> that what was said was good, invested in materials, time to learn enough
> to completes the projects. With that investment, one does not want to
> throw it away!
>
> Microchip and others must recognize that sales to the small users is
> profitable since there is considerable marketing resources spent in that
> area, which is seen in advertising in hobbiest type publications,
> forums, etc. The forums could be kept closed except to the professional
> heavy users.  This is a common practice in many industries.
>
> On 11/5/2010 10:13 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> Carl Denk wrote:
>>
>>> I as a hobbiest have been bitten by this more than once.
>>>
>> Shame on you, at least after the first time.
>>
>>
>>> I probably should take my little business elsewhere.
>>>
>> That would be silly, at least for the reason you cited.  Microchip has smart
>> and talented people designing their chips.  The issue is not with the PICs,
>> but with the example code.  It's not clear other manufacturers give you any
>> better code, and PICs have far better peer to peer support than other
>> product lines.
>>
>> What it comes down to is the micrcocontroller manufacturer is not going to
>> do your project for you.  They make free code available for sales reasons.
>> When you get bitten by this code, the fault is not theirs but yours.
>>
>>
>>> Could you imagine if one of the major auto makers did similar.
>>>
>> No, since there is no reasonable analogy.  A car is a finished product
>> intended for the masses.  A microcontroller is a component intended to be
>> designed into a circuit by someone with specialized knowledge and training.
>> Don't blame the microcontroller just because too many morons without the
>> specialized knowledge and training attempt it anyway.
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
>> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

> From: Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistspam_OUTembedinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [PIC] Microchip HID bootloader bug fixes
> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <@spam@piclistKILLspammit.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 5:27 PM
> 'William Chops" Westfield ' <KILLspamwestfwKILLspammac.com
> wrote:
> > Or maybe the good programmers get tired
> > of rewriting the same-old hacks for each new chip...
>
> Or the good programmers want to do real projects instead of
> writing
> artificial app notes, and can make a lot more money at it
> too.
>
> Either way I think you're right.  App notes are
> written by those who nobody
> wants writing their real app.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since
> 2000.

> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Jesse Lackey<TakeThisOuTjsl-mlEraseMEspam_OUTcelestialaudio.com>  wrote:
>
>> On the subject of USB, I'm digging into MSP430 USB, and the stack TI has
>> certainly looks rougher than microchip's; it is definitely newer, TI is
>> late to the USB party.  But I'm just starting out.
>>
>
> Last time I looked at the TI MSP430 USB Chip, it is limited and
> the stack is not complete yet.
>
> TI is actually very strong in USB, should be much earlier and
> better than Microchip. But the MSP430 line is very
> late in terms of USB.
>
>

> If you receive this message please update my address in your address
> book.
>
> Unfortuneatly spam has become so bad I need to change to a new email
> address.
>
> Please update my email address to "chanwalt at technicalelite.com"
>
> I will no longer be checking any email from this account as of
> 12/09/2010.