On Jun 09, 1996 at 08:27, Bill Grimsley of 3:640/305.9 wrote:

 db>> Their problem .. if nothing else, it just serves to prove that USR are
 db>> as fallable as the other modem manufacturers.  :-)
 BG> I actually feel a bit sorry for them, as it wasn't really their fault.

That's like saying it's not NetComm's fault for problems with Rockwell
chipsets.  Sure, Bill.  ;-)

 db>> At what cost to users (considering USR didn't force the users to flash
 db>> the new firmware into their modems)?
 BG>
 BG> It's not an SDL problem though.

That's just avoiding the question, Bill - who's at fault, who covers the
cost?  USR didn't force users to flash the new firmware into their modems,
so they're just as likely to disclaim all responsibility, which means it
becomes an expensive little episode for the poor users.

 BG> It's not the sort of problem which would show up in normal testing with
 BG> normal SDLs either.

It's bad hardware QA, IMHO.

    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---