RE: TI-H: About the new calcs

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: TI-H: About the new calcs

There is no hard and fast rule for EEPROMS.  The Expander SF chip was a two wire EEPROM, and there was another one that Mel had mentioned before he left the TI scene that was similar.  There are other 3-wire versions available, which would probably be more abundant and have greater densities than most 2-wire chips, and the 4-wire designs would most likely be even more popular.
	And besides, power is not really taken into account when you claim two-wire, three-wire, and so on.  That's been popularized throughout the list enough times to make one sick.
Christopher Kalos
raptorone@geocities.com
VirtuTech Developer's Group
AOL IM: Raptor1CK

----------
From: 	Grant Stockly[SMTP:gussie@alaska.net]
Sent: 	Saturday, March 14, 1998 1:04 PM
To: 	ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: 	RE: TI-H: About the new calcs


EEPROMS require 4 serial lines not including power...

>        And how difficult would it be to redo when you have a three-wire
>interface?
>        That means, Tx, Rx, and clock, which is a lot better than the
>bi-directional that they're currently using.  And besides, they can't do
>that with the 89 (which should have a lower number.  What if they come up
>with a more powerful 8x?  What do they do, go into hexadecimal and call it
>the 8A?), because it has to be compatible with the 92/92+ for linking.
>Just about any design can be redone to work with a three-wire, and it
>would be a lot less complex, except for I2C work.  And even that might be
>handled pretty easily.  I would much rather have a better link, especially
>because we've seen how tough it is to get a high density EEPROM connected
>without a microcontroller.
>
>Christopher Kalos
>raptorone@geocities.com
>VirtuTech Developer's Group
>AOL IM: Raptor1CK
>
>----------
>From:   Grant Stockly[SMTP:gussie@alaska.net]
>Sent:   Saturday, March 14, 1998 11:24 AM
>To:     ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject:        RE: TI-H: About the new calcs
>
>
>I realy didn't like your idea you told TI about the better link.  If they
>actually put that in then it would automatically be incompatible with
>everything we've done!
>
>Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:RE- TI-H- About the new calcs 1
>(????/----) (000116B0)
Warning
Could not process part with given Content-Type: application/ms-tnef