Timeline for What is µMAX IC package?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2015 at 13:34 | comment | added | Xcodo | While looking at the land pattern which Maxim supply for their μMAX 10-pin land pattern I noticed that "MOONLORD MANALO" made changes to the document - a nice believable engineer's name to add to the annoying custom package name! Maxim document 90-0330 | |
| Feb 5, 2014 at 12:39 | comment | added | Rok Jarc | μMAX is not TSOP/SSOP as some comments propose. It is a μSOP (MSOP, micro-SOP) - Maxim even specifies that in datasheets: on "package information" pages there is always a xL uMAX/uSOP specification present. | |
| Oct 15, 2013 at 10:52 | comment | added | user36129 | Every manufacturer uses its own nomenclature for something. NXP calls sot-23 6-lead 'TSMT', some people call QFN and DFN 'LFCSP' or other stuf... this is nothing special or spectacular and not at all a reason to avoid maxim. A much better to avoid maxim is availability and second sourceability. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 7:18 | comment | added | Connor Wolf | I never said it was a good idea, but IIRC, I have used these with footprints from a standard 0.65 mm pitch TSOP library. I think maxim is claiming it's thinner (in height) then standard TSOP, or something. Basically, it's just stupid. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 6:46 | comment | added | stevenvh | @Fake - I haven't compared them parameter by parameter, but if that's right it's even worse. If you follow a standard but name it differently you're only confusing the customer, and you risk that they will react like Olin. (Are there 8-pin versions of TSOP?) | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 1:18 | comment | added | Connor Wolf | uMax is just maxim's name for TSOP/SSOP - Where is the problem here? | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 13:10 | history | edited | stevenvh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
the word "lead" may be confusing
|
| Jun 23, 2011 at 13:01 | comment | added | stevenvh | @Matt - they mostly do, this is an exception. There are dozens of package types to choose from, so this looks rather pig-headed. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 12:37 | comment | added | Majenko | Why can't they just all stick to a standard instead of each manufacturer making up their own packages??? | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 12:36 | vote | accept | Majenko | ||
| Jun 23, 2011 at 12:28 | history | edited | stevenvh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 23, 2011 at 11:44 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | Looks like yet another reason to avoid Maxim parts. This one is guaranteed to have no substitutes if Maxim is the only one using this package. I expect it has a unusually high unobtanium content. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 11:42 | history | edited | stevenvh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 135 characters in body
|
| Jun 23, 2011 at 11:16 | history | edited | stevenvh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 51 characters in body; added 5 characters in body; added 87 characters in body
|
| Jun 23, 2011 at 11:11 | history | answered | stevenvh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |