S Z,

I have used both. I find the 8051 much easier to write code for, but the code is bigger and slower, unless you spend $$$ for enhanced architecture versions. The PIC has some architectural peculiarities that make writing and debugging big code difficult.

Many here would lead you to believe that a PIC is less powerful than 8051, but they must think the 12C672 and 16C54 parts are the only PICs. The 16C74, 16F877, and 17/18 series PICs are very comparable to 8051. All current PICs that I know of run internal code only, with the exception of the 17 series. I disagree that PICs are less expensive than 8051, in fact the only reason I am using an AT89C52 is because performance/$ is higher than a PIC16C54. I will say that I think the performance/$ is better for many of the more powerful PICs.

As for which to learn, I may be the wrong person to answer that question. I am fluent in 68HC11, PIC, and now 8051. I think that knowing only one chip is a big disadvantage. The 68HC11 is a relatively slow chip with a great instruction set. The PIC is fast with good hardware peripherals, RISC. The 8051 is ubiquitous, cheap, and easy. So, I say, learn them all. If I had to pick only one, I would say 8051.

I will restate what many others on this board have said. If you really want to learn a chip, use assembly lanquage.

Cory Spackman