| ??? 01/19/07 08:51 Read: times |
#131081 - I don't think so Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Looking at his profile, Asghar was the guy who asked on replacing a '48 by '51. It took him 2 days to come back that time. I think he simply has limited access to Internet.
And I'd guess, the original question has to be read: "How to replace 4x8243 in my '48 system?" JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MCS-51 I/O PORT EXPANDER | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| read the FAQ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 2. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| beware | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hard? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Could be a place for ... take a deep breath ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Richard, please,... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you noticed the loss of the O/P? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Give him a chance... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It\\\'s come up before ... perhaps it\\\'s homework | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't you mean... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well, yes, but if one works ... more will, too | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| go for SILabs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| maybe a bit more information is needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use I/O expander | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This suggestion, while good, is entirely premature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if very high speed is no concern go for IIC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do you notice that we've lost the O/P? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I don't think so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
That would explain the nomenclature | 01/01/70 00:00 |