| ??? 10/11/07 02:07 Read: times |
#145622 - basically I agree Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I think it is naughty of NXP to change the ID for the same part No.
basically I agree, however, I recall (not which or when) a chip where the requiread (parallel) algorithm changed a bit and the ID was not changed. It took the guys to read ALL the letters on the chip to select the proper programmer setup. Not to mention ever so many chips after programming did not verify, and had to be reprogrammed with the proper selection Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Philips --> NXP P89v51 problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| apparently yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks Jan | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 89V51RD2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes, but that's because... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ISP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know their answer... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Programmer Update | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| basically I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| on IDs, responsibility and decline of \'51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK the answer to P89v51 Device ID | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I asked... | 01/01/70 00:00 |