| ??? 09/26/05 14:33 Modified: 09/26/05 14:37 Read: times |
#101545 - why 87LPC? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
why 87LPC?
Many here (including me) are (somewhat) familiar with the 89LPC series, I have seen very little "traffic" re the 87LPC. If you switch to 89LPC, you do not waste a chip for every program burn. anyhow TH1 = 253; .... TH1 = 250; has to be wrong if they both have the same oscillator frequency. If both are standard timers/UARTs you are running one at 14.4 and one at 9.6 http://www.keil.com/c51/baudrate.asp Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SITUATION COMMUNICATING P87LPC764 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Try with PC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no way can nayone help you when you do n | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks ERIK | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why 87LPC? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I agree to you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| which observation do you base this on? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| REPLY | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I doubt it is the LPC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Acqura | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
it is still not the LPC | 01/01/70 00:00 |