In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, g_daubach wrote: Dan, I must admit that I used the wrong wording in my recent post. Instead of writing "in time", I should have written "as soon as it became aware to Parallax". I'm not on the Parallax payroll, so I can not, and will not make any statements on the behalf of Parallax. Due to his post in the "Sandbox" we know that Ken recently visited China, and I assume one reason for this trip was finding a packaging house for the SXes (he also mentioned this in his initial post here). It must have hit him to learn that placing the SX48/52 die into a 10 by 10 mil PQFP package is that problematic. So I'm pretty sure that Ken published this news as soon as he finally noticed that there was no acceptable solution available for this problem, so it - maybe - was not in time but as soon as possible. I further assume that Ubicom "forgot" to make Parallax aware of this problem when they made the recent "die-deal" with Parallax. Besides this, Ken has made the offer to put the SX52 in a larger 14 by 14 mil package but I can understand that this would require reliable customer commitments to put Parallax into a position investing in such a venture. As an alternative, I'm thinking of an SX52 placed into a PLCC, or similar, package. This would allow to put the device into a socket which would be great for non-SMT designs, small series and hobby use. Besides such "start-up" problems that might be hard to some of us SX users, I'm really happy that Parallax has taken over control. IMO, this makes sure that the SX will be viable for a long period of time in the future. ---------- End of Message ---------- You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=2&m=94091#m94413 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)