At 09:08 AM 10/11/96 +1000, Robert Lunn wrote:

>    Here we go.  Six months from now
>
>        'Instead of <device> you could use 12C508...'
>
>    is going to drive us all crazy!
>
>___Bob

True but it is a very viable solution. It will use less board space,
potentially less power, be more accurate, and eventially may even cost less.
I have been told many times that a 16C54 is overkill for a job but when they
are off the shelf while the "sane" solution takes more board space and has
an 8 week lead time overkill is often better.

Larry G. Nelson Sr.
L.Nelson@ieee.org
http://www.ultranet.com/~nr