21 Sep
2010
21 Sep
'10
10:38 p.m.
On 2010 Sep 21, at 6:29 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Brent Hilpert wrote:
Good point. My subjective experience was that cans predominated for
such devices into the early 70's and then 8-pin DIPs replaced them.
The 1966 Fairchild catalog shows the 709 offered in only can and 10-pin
flat-pak, even though 14 & 16-pin DIPs are listed for other devices.
In support of your suggestion, the 1969 Motorola databook shows the 709
offered in can, flat-pak and 14-pin DIP.
There is no mention of an 8-pin DIP package anywhere in this 1969 Moto
book, they do show up by 1973 (another Moto book), including for the
709 and 741.
BTW, in the 1966 catalog, Fairchild states:
The Dual In-Line - the most significant contribution to
microcircuit packaging in recent years - is a Fairchild concept.
Well, if you can't find a (reasonably-priced)
14-pinner, the pinout
patterns
of the 8 and 14-pin DIP versions are the same, so
an 8-pin is a
drop-in
replacement for the the 14-pin.
Begs the question of why the 14-pin version was
ever produced,
machine insertion/handling perhaps.
Perhaps. Also the 14-pin DIP was probably invented and standardized
(TO-116) several years before the 8-pin DIP. The 14-pin DIP appears to
date back to 1965 or earlier. I don't have any information suggesting
when the 8-pin DIP appeared. Was the ?A709 the first monolithic op-amp
offered in a DIP package? The earlier ?A702 was available in a 14-pin
DIP by 1976, but I don't think it was offered in a DIP at its
introduction. Fairchild had one part that was in a 36-pin DIP in
1969. I've never
seen that used for any other part.
Early on (late 1960s, early-to-mid 1970s), some of the Japanese
semiconductor vendors such as NEC seemed to like the 42-pin DIP.