david, at 08:48 on Jun 07 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> I doubt that USR were equally as amused though.

db> Their problem .. if nothing else, it just serves to prove that USR are as 
db> fallable as the other modem manufacturers.  :-)

I actually feel a bit sorry for them, as it wasn't really their fault.

BG> Especially as it looks very much like they'll need to go back to USR for
BG> repair.  I bet they're sorry they didn't socket the flash-ROM chip now...

db> At what cost to users (considering USR didn't force the users to flash the 
db> new firmware into their modems)?

It's not an SDL problem though.  Turns out that USR use both Intel and AMD
flash-ROM chips, and SOME of a recent batch of AMD devices had been
internally flagged as "read-only" in their higher segments, a
problem which was only discovered when the latest SDL exceeded a certain
size, thereby writing to the chip in areas hitherto unused.  It's not the
sort of problem which would show up in normal testing with normal SDLs
either.

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- MsgedSQ/2 3.30