Lpc2000

Like you my knowledge is from early days.  I can confirm that writing
the value that the cells are in erased state does not affect endurance
cycles.  But writing value that is different to the erased state does
consume endurance cycles even if the cell is already in the state that
is being written into.  This applies to both NAND and NOR types.

I would like to add -- be careful about using flash as replacement for
EEPROM.  It will work well for initial tests but it fails in the field
because EEPROM and FLASH technologies have very difference endurance
limits.

In this sense, as someone else said, the EE_Demo IMHO is an example of
perfect demo -- works only for the purpose it was designed for but is
of little or no use in real life otherwise.

Jaya

PS:  If flash can be used as EEPROM, manufactures will not bother to
have both flash *and* EEPROM embedded in the same SoC.

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Guillermo Prandi"
<yahoo.messenger@m...> wrote:
> "1s" are suppossed to be neutral, whilst "0s" actively attempt to 
> modify the memory contents. Writing 0xFF instead of the original 
> contents seems to work just fine as far as my tests go. Besides, the 
> EE_Demo project in the Files section of this group does likewise.
> 
> It would be great to know for sure which method is best with some 
> explanation of why.
> 
> Guille
>