At 02:41 PM 2/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>     The things that we have done to the code protection are all towards
>     the goal of having the most secure device possible.

Definitly a good goal.

>
>     Unfortunately, there is no where near enough volume in windowed JW
>     parts to justify doing seperate silicon for those.  So, the price for
>     protection is the loss of an occasional JW device.

The method I sugested in a prior post (Adding a code protect disable bit)
would allow using the same die.

>
>     Note: when programming be real careful when you select your device
>     type (i.e. 64 or 64A)......

Everyone makes mistakes.  If samples were easier and faster to get for the
little guy, it might not be as big of a problem.  I continually worry about
inadvertently blowing the code protect fuze and wasting my hard earned
cash.  I agree that the code protect had to be fixed but there had to be a
better way.

Norm