| ??? 11/07/03 14:41 Read: times |
#58023 - RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Michael, I second that.
While ISP/IAP may not be the cats miauw for low cost million unit designs I can not comprehend anyone amateur or low unit count not using the ISP/IAP chips. I have (with more than 2000 uCs used a month) switched to ISP/IAP simply to allow field upgrades by simple means. Still we see "how do I build a programmer" and things like the above. Evidently, even with the extremely fast progression in chip design some do still believe that what was right 10 years ago still is. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| (Off Topic) NVRAM instead of (E)EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: (OnTopic) FLASH instead of EPROM | 01/01/70 00:00 |



