Searching \ for '[PIC]: Cursed Rev-B1 18F1320s...' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=18F
Search entire site for: 'Cursed Rev-B1 18F1320s...'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: Cursed Rev-B1 18F1320s...'
2005\04\08@174609 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
Hi,
 I've just dug out my box of PICs and found that my entire supply of
PIC18F1320s consists of revision B1 chips which suffer from the infamous
"won't run code above 4MHz" bug. Needless to say, this is rather annoying,
seeing as I've just spent an hour debugging my circuit, only to find the
mention of the bug in the errata (grr).
 Does anyone know if buy.microchip, Farnell, Crownhill or sample.microchip
are sending out rev B1 or rev B4 chips?
 Does anyone know what datecode Microchip switched to Rev B4 silicon?

IM(ns)HO, Microchip really should recall these chips.. but somehow I doubt
they will.

Thanks,
--
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
spam_OUTphilpemTakeThisOuTspamphilpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... Smash forehead against keyboard to continue...

2005\04\09@025534 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 22.43 2005.04.08 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>  I've just dug out my box of PICs and found that my entire supply of
>PIC18F1320s consists of revision B1 chips which suffer from the infamous
>"won't run code above 4MHz" bug.

Can you say more about this bug please? Is it only for INTOSC, or also
for external oscillator? :P

2005\04\09@032806 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
In message <.....5.1.0.14.2.20050409085250.04266168KILLspamspam@spam@pop3.infinito.it>>          ThePicMan <thepicmanspamKILLspaminfinito.it> wrote:

> Can you say more about this bug please? Is it only for INTOSC, or also
> for external oscillator? :P

The errata sheet implies that the bug occurs when the chip is running from
either INTOSC or an external oscillator.
Basically, at speeds above 4MHz (though I've seen it at far lower clock
rates) the CPU starts executing random instructions. It cripples the chips
pretty effectively. I've got half a dozen bugged rev-B1 chips and I'm not
buying any more until the rev-B4 (supposedly fixed) chips work their way into
the supply chain...

Later.
--
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
.....philpemKILLspamspam.....philpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... I believe I will take this opportunity to remove my ears.

2005\04\09@051159 by Robin Abbott

flavicon
face
I completely agree - it is the most unprofessional action I have ever
seen by any company - we designed for 20MHz and had 60% rejection until
we dropped to 4MHz (reducing performance considerably). At least at 4MHz
we have no rejections.

Robin Abbott

Forest Electronic Developments

01590 681511
+44 1590 681511 (phone/fax)

See our web pages : http://www.fored.co.uk



{Original Message removed}

2005\04\09@080417 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
In message <000201c53ce4$2a120040$0401a8c0@RobinsLaptop>
         "Robin Abbott" <EraseMErobin.abbottspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTfored.co.uk> wrote:

> I completely agree - it is the most unprofessional action I have ever
> seen by any company - we designed for 20MHz and had 60% rejection until
> we dropped to 4MHz (reducing performance considerably). At least at 4MHz
> we have no rejections.

I had a bunch of them that wouldn't even work at 4MHz!

Still, at least the 18F252 doesn't suffer from the same bug...

I heard there were some 18F chips that had support for multiple breakpoints -
does anyone know which chips they are?

Later.
--
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
philpemspamspam_OUTphilpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... DO NOT BEND, FOLD, STAPLE, OR IN ANY WAY MUTILATE THIS TAGLINE

2005\04\09@080430 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face

>Hi,
>  I've just dug out my box of PICs and found that my entire supply of
>PIC18F1320s consists of revision B1 chips which suffer from the infamous
>"won't run code above 4MHz" bug.

snipped

{Quote hidden}

Groan...

I have B2 silicon revisions and I am trying to run them at 24MHz without
success. Another problem I have is that there is no silicon errata for B2 or B3
silicon!

I also have some specially designed prototyping boards with 18F8720 that came
from Canada and these cost me fair dollars.  Now I find that the silicon is
also screwed and they are 100% unserviceable to me. I think I will take these
to the next microchip seminar and demonstrate their effectiveness as ninja
throwing stars.

I have over a 1000 WARP-13s out there that have the "can't use the TBLWT
instruction (i.e. bootloader) if they are code protected" bug. This means I
cannot
offer free firmware updates the way I had promised.  I look bad!

This was a major reason why I have given up selling the WARP-13.

If it was good enough for intel to be forced to replace Pentiums with the FDIV
bug then it is sure good enough for microchip to replace its bugged silicon.

There are trade practice's laws in most countries that require goods to be
fit for the purpose the manufacturer sells them for.

I made a mistake in purchasing my PICs from overseas suppliers and this
makes it difficult for me to pursue the matter further but it would be
interesting
if a class action came along...

...


Regards,

Jim Robertson
NEWFOUND ELECTRONICS














2005\04\09@092924 by Philip Pemberton

face picon face
In message <@spam@6.2.1.2.0.20050409211205.021cc1a8KILLspamspampop3.pipeline.com.au>>          Jim Robertson <KILLspamjimplKILLspamspamnewfoundelectronics.com> wrote:

> I also have some specially designed prototyping boards with 18F8720 that came
> from Canada and these cost me fair dollars.  Now I find that the silicon is
> also screwed and they are 100% unserviceable to me. I think I will take these
> to the next microchip seminar and demonstrate their effectiveness as ninja
> throwing stars.

Be nice :)

> I have over a 1000 WARP-13s out there that have the "can't use the TBLWT
> instruction (i.e. bootloader) if they are code protected" bug. This means I
> cannot
> offer free firmware updates the way I had promised.  I look bad!
>
> This was a major reason why I have given up selling the WARP-13.

Wow. That's bad...

> If it was good enough for intel to be forced to replace Pentiums with the FDIV
> bug then it is sure good enough for microchip to replace its bugged silicon.

I think Andy Grove (one of Intel's management staff iirc) publicly said that
you "had more chance of being hit by a meteor than suffering from the FDIV
bug". Then a few folks proved that the chance of getting nailed by FDIV was
somewhat higher than being hit by a meteor...

> There are trade practice's laws in most countries that require goods to be
> fit for the purpose the manufacturer sells them for.

Sale of Goods Act, 1974, as amended. I'm not sure how (or even if) it applies
to buying stuff from a company that's based in the USA, but Mchip do have a
sales office in the UK...

> I made a mistake in purchasing my PICs from overseas suppliers and this
> makes it difficult for me to pursue the matter further but it would be
> interesting
> if a class action came along...

I'd join in, but most of my chips are samples anyway.. two of my 1320s (the
two I bought originally) got sent back after I found that they wouldn't run
above 2MHz (they were SERIOUSLY bugged) - the other six are samples. I
ordered three back in early '04 and ended up with B1 silicon. The second
batch were ordered in January this year and were still B1 silicon.

It's easy to prove that Microchip knew about the bug at least as early as May
2004 and that B4 silicon was available at around the same time (check the
WayBack Machine at web.archive.org if you want to confirm it). So why in the
middle of January - nearly nine months (probably more than that actually)
after the bug was discovered - were Mchip and their distributors still
sending out chips which they KNEW DAMN WELL were defective to the point of
being near useless?

I can't find the packing slip for the first batch of samples (the ones from
early '04) but the packing slip for the second batch is dated 01-17-2005.
January 17th this year. I've got (from the same order):
3x 18LF1320/SO  Datecode 04302PC
3x 18LF1320/SS  Datecode 04224RH
3x 18LF1320/P   Datecode 041514V

I haven't tested the /SOs or /SSes, but the /Ps are certainly Rev B1.

I've also got a theory about why the datecodes were removed from the errata
sheets - Microchip didn't want to end up having their distributors/customers
rejecting B1 chips based on datecode. It's fair to assume that most customers
who knew that datecode Y and later was B4 would request chips with that or a
later datecode.

Anyone wanna start a petition?

Later.
--
Phil.                              | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB,
RemoveMEphilpemTakeThisOuTspamphilpem.me.uk              | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice,
http://www.philpem.me.uk/          | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI
... Remington, shaves as close as a blade or we send the boys round.

2005\04\09@102644 by Chris

flavicon
face

Guys,

Maybe you can explain something to me. Can't you just return the bad chips.
If I ordered a bunch of PICs and found that more than 2 or 3 had the same
symptoms I'd call MC and ask for my money back or a replacement. Would I be
blown off  in this case?

I'm in the USA if that matters.

Chris




http://www.rocklizard.org
<myname>@rocklizard.org
myname = chris
------------------------------------
12x2 LCD displays & serial LCD
interface chips available.
Visit http://pic.rocklizard.org
------------------------------------

2005\04\09@105925 by olin_piclist

face picon face
Philip Pemberton wrote:
> It's easy to prove that Microchip knew about the bug at least as
> early as May 2004

I reported this problem to Microchip in early March 2003, then sent them a
test case on 12 March 2003.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\09@121437 by Randy Jones

flavicon
face
> I reported this problem to Microchip in early March 2003, then sent them a
> test case on 12 March 2003.

And, knowing about that, I approached the Microchip speakers during a break
in the 18F class at the Masters Conference in July 2003.  When I asked about
the status of the investigation and resolution of this problem, they all
claimed to have no idea what I was talking about.

I had avoided asking the question in front of the whole class so that they
might be more inclined to discuss the issue candidly with me, but even when
it was just several M'chip guys and myself they had nothing to say about it.

As I recall, the first errata admitting the problem and announcing the
availability of fixed silicon came out in November 2003 -- less than four
months after that "discussion."

Several months later I contacted Microchip to find out what the date codes
were for the new silicon so I could safely order some through a distributor
for my inventory.  The "answers" were very evasive and no date codes were
provided.  "Just work through a M'chip rep" or something like that.

A rather dark chapter in Microchip's history, IMHO.

-Randy
http://www.glitchbuster.com

2005\04\09@125633 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

Interesting post Randy,

Guess who I bought some of my bugged parts from? Now who
would foot the bill if I wanted to return them?  These parts have
been though how many hands? This just gets messy.

I noticed that you do not sell them anymore. I actually wanted to
buy some B4 revisions so I went to your web site to order them.
I simply was going to foot the loss myself. It is trivial compared
to the losses caused with the bugged 18F252s and 18F8720s

I was not surprised to see that you had removed the 18F1320 from
your inventory.

Regards,

Jim





2005\04\09@132915 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
This is all the more reason to NOT design with a brand-new component,
but to wait a
year until all the skeletons are out of the closet. As in any human
endeavor, there is always
the possibility that things won't work as indicated.

I must fault Microchip for not being candid about these things. I'd
prefer open honesty
over sales bullsh - - any day. As engineers we are obligated by our
clients to NOT be
taken in by hype. I always thought Microchip was above this, but I guess
as a company
gets big, integrity and truth are certain casualties.

Even the F88, which I have grown to love so much, has some serious
documentation
confusion, maybe even some outright errors. But I waited 8 months before
I even touched
one...

--Bob

Randy Jones wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
spamBeGoneattachspamBeGonespamengineer.cotse.net .
1-866-263-5745 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2005\04\09@133225 by Mauricio Jancic

flavicon
face
He in Argentina we do not have such problems... The new PICs takes so long
to be on our regular market, that when they are, all the bugs (or most) ar
already fixed...

:))
Just a little joke.

Mauricio Jancic
Janso Desarrollos - Microchip Consultants Program Member
TakeThisOuTinfoEraseMEspamspam_OUTjanso.com.ar
http://www.janso.com.ar
(54) 11 - 4542 - 3519

2005\04\09@152054 by Randy Jones

flavicon
face
> Guess who I bought some of my bugged parts from? Now who
> would foot the bill if I wanted to return them?  These parts have
> been though how many hands? This just gets messy.

My policy has always been to accept returns on faulty or allegedly faulty
parts and issue a full no-hassle refund.  There have been very few parts
returned, and it isn't worth trying to determine fault -- I just consider it
a matter of good customer service.  In at least one case the return was
clearly due to problems with early production parts, but I don't believe
Microchip would have stood behind them.  It wasn't worth my time to find
out, in any case.

Several years ago I worked hard to have new PICs in stock as soon as
production parts became available -- often placing backorders months before
a part was scheduled for release.  Due to Microchip's ongoing difficulty
launching relatively bug free product, I now tend to take the opposite
approach.  With my very thin margins I really can't afford to "eat"
Microchip's mistakes -- but I'll do that before forcing a customer to.

I only sold one or two tubes of 18F1320 before realizing the severity of the
situation and temporarily dropping them from my inventory.  Within the next
week or two I'm going to see whether I can get some rev. B4.  If you would
like to return any of the early ones you may have bought from me, I'll give
you a full refund.  Then I'll mail them to Microchip's president, and ask if
he'll do the same for me.  I think I could accurately predict the outcome,
but I would do it just the same.  :o)

Cheers!

-Randy
http://www.glitchbuster.com






{Quote hidden}

2005\04\09@153547 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face

>This is all the more reason to NOT design with a brand-new component,
>but to wait a
>year until all the skeletons are out of the closet. As in any human
>endeavor, there is always
>the possibility that things won't work as indicated.

Except for the fact that the silicon bug we are talking about is NOT
in the first release of the silicon. It occurs in the first revision. It
may also be in the second and third revisions. There is no errata for
these...

Regards,

Jim Robertson
NEWFOUND ELECTRONICS


2005\04\11@035556 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Does anyone know if buy.microchip, Farnell, Crownhill or sample.microchip
>are sending out rev B1 or rev B4 chips?
>  Does anyone know what datecode Microchip switched to Rev B4 silicon?
>
>IM(ns)HO, Microchip really should recall these chips.. but somehow I doubt
>they will.

I would try getting hold of the Microchip people here in the UK, and keep
bugging them to exchange the chips for you.

2005\04\11@045846 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 02.56 2005.04.10 +1000, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Oh no.. Murphy law to the extreme. The only 18F chips I've ever bought
are:

PIC18F1320
PIC18F252
PIC18F452
PIC18F8720

So now it's 3 out of 4 of "my" chips that are possibly buggy. What a
luck that I have!

Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the 8720?
This will be my biggest pain.. I'm sure, also because it's the only one
of the 3 that I cannot replace, being TQFP instead of the friendly DIP..

2005\04\11@082542 by olin_piclist

face picon face
ThePicMan wrote:
> Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the 8720?

So you're asking everyone else to read the errata sheets for you, then tell
you what they said?


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\04\11@093901 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the
>> 8720?

> So you're asking everyone else to read the errata sheets for you,
> then tell
> you what they said?

Interesting take on that question. I would have thought he was asking
if anyone had practical experience with the device's real performance,
rather than with that claimed in the "spec" sheet. eg "Does it have to
be run under 4 Mhz rather than 20 MHz and what flavour dead fish
should be waved?".

Especially so as the post he was replying to contained, if you'd read
through it, (or even if you hadn't) statements like

>>Several months later I contacted Microchip to find out what the date
>>codes
>>were for the new silicon so I could safely order some through a
>>distributor
>>for my inventory.  The "answers" were very evasive and no date codes
>>were
>>provided.  "Just work through a M'chip rep" or something like that.

ie you haven't got a show of working out anything certainly useful
from the errata.
The rest of the post is equally discouraging.

If you are going to be rude to people it's a good idea to read the
whole context of what they are replying to to lessen possible mistaken
responses. Especially so if you are only rude and don't provide useful
information as well.

No substitute for other people's experiences when the manufacturer
decides to give up on telling you how their parts really work and
hiding the information when they know.



       RM



2005\04\11@105247 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 08.26 2005.04.11 -0400, you wrote:
>ThePicMan wrote:
>>Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the 8720?
>
>So you're asking everyone else to read the errata sheets for you, then tell
>you what they said?

Bingo!


2005\04\11@111401 by michael brown

picon face
From: "Olin Lathrop"


> ThePicMan wrote:
> > Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the
8720?
>
> So you're asking everyone else to read the errata sheets for you, then
tell
> you what they said?

Maybe not.  The problem I had with high sleep current on the 16F88 isn't
in the errata.  At least not in a form that matched up with my
particular scenario.  I assume that Jinx still hasn't heard anything
from Microchip regarding his submission to them about the problem.

ISTR someone recently saying that the Rev B2 and B3 of the 18F1320 are
problematic as well with no mention in the errata, but I don't know that
for sure.

2005\04\11@113314 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face
At 10.11 2005.04.11 -0500, you wrote: > >> ThePicMan wrote:
>> > Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the
>8720?
>>
>> So you're asking everyone else to read the errata sheets for you, then
>tell
>> you what they said?

>Maybe not.  The problem I had with high sleep current on the 16F88 >isn't
>in the errata.  At least not in a form that matched up with my
>particular scenario.  I assume that Jinx still hasn't heard anything
>from Microchip regarding his submission to them about the problem.

>ISTR someone recently saying that the Rev B2 and B3 of the 18F1320 are
>problematic as well with no mention in the errata, but I don't know that
>for sure.
> By the way, just to make sure.. my "bingo!" in reply to Mr. Lathrop's rude post was obviously ironic. He hasn't understood a thing. He just looks for excuses to be mean with people. How childish. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2005\04\11@120526 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> By the way, just to make sure.. my "bingo!" in reply to Mr.
> Lathrop's rude post was obviously ironic.

I must have lost it. Did you or did you not read the errata sheet before
asking? If not, why do you consider Olin rude? The errata sheet is very
very small, and in most cases even readable. If you did, why didn't you
make clear that you were specifically asking for things that are not in
the errata?

I might join the 'Olin bashers' when I think that is realy appropriate,
but in this case my sympathies are clearly with the other side.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\04\12@025851 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face

> > Guess who I bought some of my bugged parts from? Now who
> > would foot the bill if I wanted to return them?  These parts have
> > been though how many hands? This just gets messy.
>
>My policy has always been to accept returns on faulty or allegedly faulty
>parts and issue a full no-hassle refund.

snip

>   If you would
>like to return any of the early ones you may have bought from me, I'll give
>you a full refund.
>Cheers!
>
>-Randy
><http://www.glitchbuster.com>http://www.glitchbuster.com

Great service Randy!  I appreciate the offer. However I'm not looking
to hold the "small guy" responsible for a multinational's very poor form.
Besides, I've probably taken a blow torch to these parts already. ;-)

Regards,

Jim





2005\04\12@095141 by Tony Smith

picon face
> At 08.26 2005.04.11 -0400, you wrote:
> >ThePicMan wrote:
> >>Please, could anybody enter in detail about what does afflict the 8720?
> >
> >So you're asking everyone else to read the errata sheets for
> you, then tell
> >you what they said?
>
> Bingo!
>


That's a bit rude.  Perhaps you should read the doc & then ask about the bit
that's confusing you.

Tony

2005\04\13@013746 by Robert Rolf

picon face
Mr Sanghi, president of Microchip, provided this response
to my inquiry about whether this was their usual level of
customer service, and to my follow up comments on his first
reply. I thought is was worth sharing with you.

It is not often that a CEO takes the time to reply to a single
customer, so that would suggest that Microchip really does care
about the problems, even if it is rather impractical to get an
RMA for already installed and in-the-field parts.

But we already knew why it's called 'bleeding edge' technology.

> Robert,
>
>         You may post my reply to the PIC List.
>
>         I do not know about the assertion that the chips with a bug are
> useless.  These are very complex devices and many times can not be
> completely debugged till thousands of customers are looking at them.  We
> go through Alpha and Beta testing and solve the most glaring issues.
>  The remaining bugs have work arounds.  The normal RMA (Returned
> Material Authorization) proceedure is available for customers to return
> their parts to Microchip or to the distributor, if they bought them from
> the distributor.
>
>         The vast majority of the customers want advance products and are
> willing to work with a few bugs with work arounds.  If a customers wants
> absolutely mature silicons, then the customer will be depriving himself
> from all new devices introduced in the last couple of years whether from
> Microchip or from a competitor.
>
>         Steve Sanghi


> Steve Sangh wrote:
>  > Thank you for bringing the issues you have experienced to my attention.
>  > Please allow me to respond to your concerns.
>  >
>  > 1) NOT releasing date code info in errata sheets so that we can avoid
>  > buggy chips.
>  >
>  > This is a request we have received from multiple customers. Towards this
>  > end we have made 3 improvements in the last year or so to help our
>  > customers gain better visibility into datecodes and revisions.
>  >
>  >     * As part of continuously improving our systems we have been
>  >       incorporating datecodes into our errata sheets whenever possible.
>  >       For example the 18F8720 Rev A3 errata sheet has an explicit date
>  >       code on the first page.
>  >     * We have added Device ID's and Revision ID's to our errata sheets
>  >     * We have updated several of our tools to enable them to display the
>  >       Revision based on the Revision ID of the device
>  >
>  >       However, I do acknowledge we have not always had this information
>  >       in our older errata sheets, and in some cases we have omitted the
>  >       information on some current errata sheets. My apologies for any
>  >       inconvenience this may have caused - we will strive to improve in
>  >       this area and provide this information in our errata sheets
>  >       whenever possible. In the meanwhile the improvements we have made
>  >       to our tools should enable relatively easy verification of product
>  >       revision.
>  >
>  >       2)Knowing about a problem with the chips but refusing to
>  >       acknowledge it to your customers.
>  >
>  >       We have always been open and honest with customers about errata we
>  >       find in our products. We post our errata on our web site as soon
>  >       as practical and we try and offer work-arounds to the errata as
>  >       soon as we have validated them. Our experience has been that ~99%
>  >       of the problems that get reported to us end up being application
>  >       level questions that have nothing to do with a problem with the
>  >       product. With that in mind we seek to thoroughly investigate and
>  >       validate problem reports before creating an errata in order to not
>  >       unnecessarily alarm the vast majority of customers who do not have
>  >       a problem. For the small number of times when we do validate that
>  >       there is a functional problem, we strive to as quickly as possible
>  >       identify the root cause, provide work arounds if possible and to
>  >       publish the errata
>  >
>  >       We very much value our customers and appreciate their loyalty. You
>  >       can rest assured that we never take customers' loyalty for
>  >       granted.  Our customers have a range of suppliers and products to
>  >       chose from.  We understand that we have to win their business
>  >       everytime with new products, improvements, cost reductions etc.
>  >       And we strive every day to deliver results that will reward our
>  >       customers for their ongoing loyalty.
>  >
>  >       With best regards,
>  >
>  >       Steve Sanghi
>  >
>  >       President and CEO
>  >       Microchip Technology Inc

To make this post shorter I have deleted my inquiry text since the key points
are embedded in the above reply.

>  >       ---{Original Message removed}

2005\04\13@022852 by Jinx

face picon face
>  >         I do not know about the assertion that the chips with a bug are
>  > useless.  These are very complex devices and many times can not be
>  > completely debugged till thousands of customers are looking at them

My thoughts would be, without trying to attract "well, how many chips
have YOU made lately ?" comments -

o  what sort of facilities do they have for (accelerated) testing and
routines
and scenarios to test every function and feature of the silicon ?

o  how does a silicon bug come about in the first place ? Are there not
manufacturing templates for the various modules ?

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...