Once apon a time Stephen Kemp said, 'Dynalink 33.6k' to Bill Grimsley...



 BG> I believe that if ATI7 shows an EPROM and DSP revision of 2.5 or

 BG> later, the problem will have been eliminated, but can't verify that

 BG> immediately.



 SK> Yep, mine shows the revision of 2.5 (date 20/5/96) so it

 SK> definitely falls in the faulty batch. What I can't figure is

 SK> why mine doesn't seem to show it.

 

How can you say "mine shows revision 2.5 so it definately falls

into the faulty batch" when Bill specifically mentions that _2.5_ and

later appear to be ok? Maybe you need to re-read his message. :)



 SK> Am I not using it in situations

 SK> where the bug is supposed to show itself. I was on direct chat to

 SK> the sysop of a BBS for about 1/2 an hour without any pause. Isn't

 SK> this where the bug comes in?



Supposedly.



 SK> One hopes that Dynalink will do the righty and allow owners

 SK> of the buggy model to upgrade at no/ minimal cost.



It's unlikely, in practice, but I am fairly certain that your modem

does not suffer from the bug, as it is the same version as Bill's. I also

have the same modem, but version 2.51, and it definately does not have this

bug.



Trust me, I have looked long and hard for the symptoms ever since I got it,

but it has performed absolutely flawlessly.



Regards,

Simon



... I Forgot To Add A Tagline.

--- FMail/386 1.02