Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
12/12/03 14:21
Read: times


 
#60495 - RE: once more
Responding to: ???'s previous message
In small quantities (200) the additional cost of more capable parts becomes a moot point!! If you pay $1 USD more per processor you have already probably spent more than the $200 USD in the last few days discussing the subject. Erik's advice to not use a processor that will be going away is a sound recommendation and should be heeded. You may one day need to repair a small quantity of systems and replacement parts would be difficult to obtain. Then once again you will spend sevaral $100's of USD in a scramble to figure out what to do. Best is to go with the part that has the greatest chance of still being alive in 5, 6, or even 10 years!!

Michael Karas

BTW, It is often the case that in discussions such as this that 100's is more like 1000's if the process ends up having to drag a whole organization through the process.
MJK





List of 23 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Add. info            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: Add. info            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
   again            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: 89C51RC and Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
               once more            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: once more            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: once more            01/01/70 00:00      
                     RE: once more            01/01/70 00:00      
                        RE: you are right            01/01/70 00:00      
                           RE: you are right            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List