lpc2100_fan wrote: > A PLCC-48 does not exist, neither do sockets for a package that does > not exist. That is true. But why insist on using PLCC-44, when there's a quite established PLCC-52 footprint? Using _that_ package, no functionality restrictions were necessary ... ___________________________________________________________ Was denken Sie \ufffdber E-Mail? Wir h\ufffdren auf Ihre Meinung: http://surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p0379378.aspx
Message
Re: [lpc2000] Re: New poll for lpc2000 - use PLCC-52!
2005-09-28 by haare_in_der_dusche@yahoo.de