Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!hhdist From: TDSTRONG%MTUS5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Tim Strong) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: RE: Soldered-in ROMs: 20/20 hindsight Message-ID: <9CA71B286000016D@gacvx2.gac.edu> Date: 4 Mar 91 16:58:13 GMT Lines: 27 Return-path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:TDSTRONG@MTUS5.BITNET> In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 2 Mar 1991 17:42 CST To: handhelds@gac.edu > >Problem: HP wants to fix bugs in their ROMs, but didn't allow any >way to replace them. Then they complain when people want the new >version. > >Solution: They should have used EEPROMs. Yes, it would have cost >more, but so does throwing out a lot of calculators because they >can't change the ROMs. This is not meant as a criticism of HP-- >20/20 hindsight, and all that. But now that it's happened, >there's no excuse for HP, or anyone else, to make the same >mistake again. > Under the threat of showing my own stupidity. I always thought that as well as being more expensive EEPROMS were also very sensitive. I thought that they we very sensitive to static (then again so is ROM to an extent) and that the infomation written in them only lasted a certain number of read-write cycles. Doesn't that mean the 5 or 10 years in the future your EEPROM might not be readable anymore?????? Thats what I always though, however I haven't gotten far enough in my studies to confirm that belief. ====================================================================== ___ I__) _ _I _ _ TIM STRONG I \ (_I (_I (_I I MICHIGAN TECH. HOUGHTON, MICHIGAN ======================================================================