Jim Robertson wrote:

> Now read the fine print: ;-(
>
> "Supports low speed USB"
>
> No mention of "Full Speed" or "High speed" modes.
>
> ...To me it very much appears that readers are being misled
> without actually being lied to. The devil is in the detail.

> In other words, this is not anything like a FTDI chip
> ("Full speed" device) and it effective Baud rate will be around
> 9600 Baud as this is the "real" bandwidth of the low-speed
> USB side (8 bytes per 1mS). Yes, low-speed devices are part
> of  both USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 specifications. USB 2.0
> can be that slow!


Hi Jim,

Interesting comments, but my gut feeling on this tells me that the reference
on the data sheet to "Supports low speed USB" was not intended -- I believe
it was an oversight/mistake on their part and was not intended to be
interpreted the way it sounds.

My rhetorical questions are these:

1) Why would a company design something like this (after researching the
market) that would have less performance than the FT232BM?
   To me, it just does not makes sense and it would be marketing suicide in
my opinion.

2) Why would a company go through so much trouble to make their API a clone
of FTDI's (and risk a lawsuit) if the real McCoy was not inside?

I still believe it's a re-package job -- most likely a FTDI FT232BM die is
in that package, along with the necessary ancillary components.


Best regards,

Ken Pergola

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu