Jim Robertson <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:

> >the 16C71 and 16C71A became the 16C710 and 16C711
>
> Actually Andy, I think you are wrong here. The 16C710 is NOT a
> renamed 16C71, it is a renamed 16C70. The 16C70 was an "A-TYPE"
> revision to begin with without the "A" suffix (Like the 16C63.)  So
> here, there IS a little method in the madness. (But strong emphasis
> on "little.")  As far as I know, the 16C71 is still the 16C71.

Jim:

Sorry; that was a typo.  I meant, "the 16C70 and 16C71A became the
16C710 and 16C711".

-Andy

Andrew Warren - fastfwd@ix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499