RE: TI-H: About the new calcs

To: "'ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org'" <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: RE: TI-H: About the new calcs
From: Christopher Kalos <raptorone@geocities.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:42:27 -0500
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

	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!

Warning: Could not process part with given Content-Type: application/ms-tnef