Re: TI-H: PIC's

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: PIC's
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@stockly.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:49:22 -0800
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
In-Reply-To: <37A73696.830E7802@baladyne.com>
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.

For a bunch of things.  Since the 186 has come out it has filled large
embedded apps, and the AVR and COP the rest.

References:

RE: TI-H: PIC's

From: "J D" <starkruzr@hotmail.com>

Re: TI-H: PIC's

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@stockly.com>

Re: TI-H: PIC's

From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>

Prev: Re: TI-H: PIC's
Next: Re: TI-H: PIC's
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread