🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #2166

INTEL and ZEOS getting it together (not!)

#2166
From: Robert M Atkins
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 00:09
47 lines
3254 bytes
OK, so I'm waiting (im)patiently for my P-90 replacement like a good
user, I even have the Intel promise document in hand when out of the
blue I get a message from an Intel engineer (no last name, no return
phone number) saying basically "Your P-90 has been put on hold since
we have found an electrical incompatibility problem with P-90s and
the ZEOS Pantera P-90 motherboards". That's it. It's on my answering
machine so I can't ask any questions.

So I call Intel. "Yes, there is a problem". "no, I can't tell you
what it is, you'll have to call ZEOS (great!)". "They will have to
handle things, we aren't shipping P-90s to ZEOS owners". "It's
an electrical problem". I ask how there can be such a problem
since the P-90 in there now should be *exactly* the same as the
P-90 they will (eventually?) replace it with, except the the floating
point unit might not make as many errors. No comment from Intel "You'll
have to ask Zeos about that". Great. Apparently the Intel engineers
havn't had the pleasure of talking to Zeos engineers much.

So I call ZEOS (yeh, I know how much fun *that* can be). "NO, Intel are
wrong. There's no problem. We are not handling this issue. I'll send
you a FAX of the memo" FAX arrives, but it's dated Dec 20th! Basically
says, "take it to Intel, it's not our problem". I knew that already.

So I call Intel again. "Yes, there is a problem, Zeos are wrong....."

So I call Zeos again "Wait a minute, I'll see...." "Yes, there is
a problem but only with early motherboards using the 5v to 3.3v
adaptor board. Current systems with low voltage P-90's on the motherboard
have no problem at all"

So I call Intel again and explain this to them. "OK", they say, I'll put
you back on the list, with a rush".

Now if *I* can find this out, by spending half my afternoon's work time
on hold with INTEL and ZEOS, why can't they work this out between them.

Who should I send the bill for my time to for working out problems that
shouldn't have been there in the first place. And why don't Intel
engineers leave a return phone number when they call with "suprise"
messages?

Who was it that was filing a class action lawsuit? I may just want to
give them a hand (maybe they'd like to go after ZEOS too?).


Bob Atkins
AT&T BEll Labs, Murray Hill, NJ   Email: rma@clockwise.att.com
Technical Details
Message-ID: <D2DCGJ.Bup@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!ub4b!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net! spool.mu.edu!olivea!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1001b2,a04df2f432c5ec58,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1001b2,public
X-Google-Thread: 112542,a04df2f432c5ec58,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid112542,public
X-Google-Thread: 110292,a04df2f432c5ec58,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid110292,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-14 08:39:05 PST
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,biz.zeos.general,alt.sys.pc-clone.zeos
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!ub4b!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net! spool.mu.edu!olivea!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail
From: rma@clockwise.mh.att.com (Robert M Atkins)
Subject: INTEL and ZEOS getting it together (not!)
Message-ID: <D2DCGJ.Bup@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: clockwise.mh.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Div111
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 00:09:55 GMT
Lines: 49