Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!ns!logajan
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: PAL's vs gates
Message-ID: <1990Jan30.000906.20558@ns.network.com>
Date: 30 Jan 90 00:09:06 GMT
References: <358@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>
Sender: news@ns.network.com
Organization: Network Systems Corporation, Mpls., MN
Lines: 21

In article <358@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes:
>Is there any intrinsic benfit from using PAL's
>rather than separate logic chips

I have to make that type of decision all the time.  In a production 
environment, PALS are expensive to program and install (they require
sockets) and you need a bureaucracy to keep track of the "firmware" level.

The forces on me, then, are to avoid using PALS.  One nice feature, however,
is that if I screw up (really! It has been known to happen even to me!) it
is often easy to burn a new PAL with a few changes, and the boss doesn't
even have to know anything went wrong.

For home use, if I had a PAL Burner, I would probably use PALS whenever I
could to reduce layout/wire-wrap work.  Since I don't have a home PAL-burner
I tend to use standard logic (but since I don't really do much home stuff
anymore, I guess I can't really say I use ANYTHING.)

-- 
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853