Re: TI-H: PIC's

Re: TI-H: PIC's

• To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: TI-H: PIC's
• From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>
• Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:36:06 -0400
• Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
• Delivered-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
• References: <19990803131412.31287.qmail@hotmail.com> <v04020a02b3cce4eb63a5@[24.237.5.4]>
• Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

Grant, I usually appreciate your comments in this list, but I suppose I don't
understand your point of reference.  Yes, some PICs are expensive compared to
other processors.  But for some products and users, they work much better than
other processors.

When you say general comments such as, "The newer ones cost way too much." It
would be more helpful if you would qualify that by stating what they cost too
much for.  Hobbyist use?  Maybe.  Pace Makers?  Dunno.  Large manufacturers who
can order them in 1M quantities?  Probably not.

-Adam

Grant Stockly wrote:
> 
> The newer ones cost way too much.

• Re: TI-H: PIC's
• From: Grant Stockly <gussie@stockly.com>

• RE: TI-H: PIC's
• From: "J D" <starkruzr@hotmail.com>
• Re: TI-H: PIC's
• From: Grant Stockly <gussie@stockly.com>

• Prev: Re: TI-H: I know I'm going to regret this...
• Next: Re: TI-H: PIC's
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread