I could be the only one asking for this but I am really dreaming of
an ARM DIP package that can be prototyped very easilyon a bread
board. Or maybe someone out there will place the new small chips on
a DIP-40 board but still sell it for $5
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "philips_apps" <philips_apps@y...>
> A little additional info why the focus on the
PLCC44 package. It
> cost and cost. The resale price of a PLCC52 device
would be more
> than 30 cent higher than that of a PLCC44. Most of our customers,
> most of you would probably think that 8 pins
difference will not
> make a big difference in price, well your judgement. For us, 30
> cent is a very big difference considering that the average price
> the LPC2101/2/3 is below $2, that is more than 15%
> It is all about which package is used in how many millions already
> within the company. We have many devices in a PLCC44 but very few
> a PLCC52. So we get a much better price for the
PLCC44, so do you.
> By ignoring my own rules and in part because of the input from the
> group I checked with our engineering team and there is a good
> that the impact of a 44-pin will be very little.
For example based
> on an input here, I checked what the RTCK is used for and the
> was, not needed in our enviroment, neither do most
of the JTAG
> debuggers use it, so there was the candidate for one side. Pin 39
> was the favorite of the poll here as well, that is most likely
> to be another one.
> For the other 2 pins we might have a chance to consolidate power
> pins. Will tell you by the end of the week after the meetings with
> the chip designers are finished.
> Hope you enjoy this interaction and the looks behind the scenes,
> definitely I do enjoy your input and the discussions on this forum!
> Thank you all for the feedback already and feel free to provide
> --- In lpc2000@lpc2..., lpc2000@lpc2... wrote:
> > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> > lpc2000 group:
> > What package yould you prefer for the new LPC2000 family
> > devices?
> > Note: I have no influence whatsoever over what Philips does,
> > and I have no indication that they would consider the results
> > of this survey...
> > o LQFP-48
> > o PLCC-44 with less functionality (see previous poll)
> > o PLCC-52 (a bit larger, but well supported)
> > To vote, please visit the following web page:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/surveys?id144986
> > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo!
> > web site listed above.
> > Thanks!