| ??? 03/08/07 20:48 Modified: 03/08/07 20:49 Read: times |
#134593 - there you go again ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
If you refer to 1) I have had dealings with Brent and, yes, the reaction is not immediate but the reasonable complaints he has gotten from me have all, eventually, been addressed satisfactorily. That some complaints such as "this feature of the debugger, that does work, is cumbersome to use" have yet to be deemed 'reasonable' is another story. However, anything related to an actual malfunction has been addressed.random If you refer to 2) then the fact that NO ONE have in a thread that long reported flash erasures with correctly configured and coded chips should say something. There's no evidence presented here. Just because the chip salesman or his FAE takes your calls or, maybe even, buys you lunch, doesn't mean what he says is true or accurate. Further, the fact that you have to add a supervisor to a chip that apparently has features that should alleviate the need for one says something too, doesn't it? Alas, this is a modern chip, so there is not much of interest to you.
Erik You're right, Erik ... I have no interest in a device that won't meet my requirements, one of which is that it work as an upgrade to an existing PCB, which requires a PLCC-44 or a DIP-40. Now, would you stop shilling for the SiLabs and supervisor chip guys? Which chip you prefer isn't germane to this discussion. RE |
