Re: Ti-89 Died

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: Ti-89 Died
From: Tom <tomgNOSPAM@NORTHCOAST.COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:12:53 GMT
Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here
References: <19981103171353.26549.00003285@ng68.aol.com> <19981103200812.23636.00003380@ng14.aol.com>
Reply-To: Tom <tomgNOSPAM@NORTHCOAST.COM>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:26238

On 4 Nov 1998 01:08:12 GMT, stl137@aol.com (STL137) wrote:

>Chip making = ROM burning.
Wrong.
>ROM is not a WORM device, as you seem to imply. WORM
>devices are commonly encountered in CD-R drives, Write Once Read Many.
So, what are you trying to say here?  That ROMS can not be read many
times?  Yes they can. Are you saying they cannot be rewritten?  Yes,
they can.  Remember, the Flash rom in the newer TI's?  Or the older
style PROMS which are erased with UV light shined in through a window,
and programmed in a ROM burner.  Let me know I'll send you a picture
of one.  Do you have ANY evidence to support your claim?  I've
mentioned Flash rom in TI's, Flash bios's in PC's, and the older
style.
>ROMs
>cannot be manufactured in a "blank state" whereby a computer can write to them
>once.
Yes, they can and are.  Learn something before you spew pure BS.
>The contents of the ROM *must* be put into it as it is etched out at the
>photolithography plant.
Then what does a ROM burner do?  How did you flash your ROM?  Again,
source of information for your (wrong) claim?
>Thus, chip making = ROM burning.
Wrong again.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Ti-89 Died

From: STL137 <stl137@AOL.COM>

Re: Ti-89 Died

From: Tom Lake <tomlake@SLIC.COM>

ROM Burning

From: Silent <soldevi@USXCHANGE.NET>

References:

Re: Ti-89 Died

From: SmithwickC <smithwickc@AOL.COM>

Re: Ti-89 Died

From: STL137 <stl137@AOL.COM>

Prev: Re: Ti-89 Died
Next: Re: Ti-89 Died
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread