Intel "asked" to sell faulty chips

[bob urz]

http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=1986

bob

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2011 5:40 AM, bob urz wrote:

http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=1986

bob

Well, a chip is only faulty if it does not meet its specification, or
will have an abnormally high failure rate if used within its specification.

So if Intel changes the spec on these chips, sells them for use within
the revised spec, and the chips won't then fail at an abnormal rate,
then they are not faulty.

Sylvia.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:40:54 -0600, bob urz <sound@inetnebr.com>
wrote:

http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=1986
bob

Intel wiggle-around (from Newegg):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcE2alQPvY>
<http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/682006.aspx>
Basically, ports 0 and 1 are fine (at 6Mbits/sec).
Ports 2 thru 5 (at 3Mbits/sec) are defective and should not be used.
No software or firmware fix possible.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:18:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:40:54 -0600, bob urz <sound@inetnebr.com
wrote:

http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=1986
bob

Intel wiggle-around (from Newegg):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcE2alQPvY
http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/682006.aspx
Basically, ports 0 and 1 are fine (at 6Mbits/sec).
Ports 2 thru 5 (at 3Mbits/sec) are defective and should not be used.
No software or firmware fix possible.

How to tell if you have a problem (from Intel):
<http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/chipset.htm>
and Gigabyte:
<http://www.techspot.com/news/42293-gigabyte-releases-sandy-bridge-sata-checker-utility.html>

Gigabyte motherboards:
<http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2011/02/intel-6-series-chipset-issues-q.html>

AsusTek motherboards:
<http://service.asus.com/notice/>

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Fred]

bob urz <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in news:iis2nv$2kn$1@speranza.aioe.org:

http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=1986

"Computers can be designed in a way that avoids the problem."

Yeah, only buy ones that have AMD processors...hee hee.

Can you imagine that Toyota is doing this to family cars?.....(c;]

What about Boeing?

 

[Fred]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:04u3l6hd7oislvm3r7chnjoupt6f47enjl@4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcE2alQPvY

Of course, the net responds......with a new Hitler video......

Hilarious, unless you own Intel stock or are involved in the upcoming
engineer PURGE....(c;]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yEQSX4biR4

 

[Fred]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:flv3l6lrqskh7hqkoqmlc8hahd2suqdto1@4ax.com:

How to tell if you have a problem

Your only problem is to identify the board in your computer for the next 8
years until all the defective boards have been dumped by the
discounters.....

Then, the problem becomes THEIR problem as you RETURN THE JUNK for a full
refund......or else.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2011 5:39 PM, Fred wrote:

Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:flv3l6lrqskh7hqkoqmlc8hahd2suqdto1@4ax.com:

How to tell if you have a problem

Your only problem is to identify the board in your computer for the next 8
years until all the defective boards have been dumped by the
discounters.....

Then, the problem becomes THEIR problem as you RETURN THE JUNK for a full
refund......or else.

I'd have thought Intel and other board manufacturers will at least
change the revision number of their boards. The specs for the current
revisions will be changed to state that some or all of the SATA II ports
are not functional.

A discounter should take note and describe the borads accordingly. Then
if a customer tries to return the board, having failed to take note, it
will be their problem, not the discounters. If the discounter fails to
properly describe the board, then they should have to provide a refund.

So while some people may suffer problems, they will be self-inflicted.

Sylvia.

 

[Fred]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in news:8rf3f0F340U1
@mid.individual.net:

Then
if a customer tries to return the board, having failed to take note, it
will be their problem, not the discounters. If the discounter fails to
properly describe the board, then they should have to provide a refund.

You need to read Federal Law 15USC50 section 2300. What you propose is
not allowed when items are sold to the consumer. Goods are expected, by
Federal Law, to be fully functional with no known issues with design,
material or workmanship BEFORE you purchase V1.00.

It's an amazing law, and every American needs to research it. I
successfully returned an $8,400 Yamaha Waverunner that was poorly
designed in 1997 and got a full refund. Being told you can't do that or
this is simply a lie....to the informed consumer. There's no exclusion
in the law for BS...(c;]

Every defective board sold is in violation of the "Implied Warranty of
Merchantability" and they know it. They're depending on consumers simply
knuckling under and believing the company BS about implied warranty
disclaimers that are in ever written warranty you ever get....which are
NOT permitted under the law. It's why Walmart cheerfully refunds your
money on the bad toaster, even out of the written short warranty.
Implied warranties go BEYOND the written warranty by at least 4 years, as
tested in court.

Most important to the consumer is 15USC50 2304(a)(4) which the courts
have consistently said gives them 3 attempts or 30 days to fix your lemon
car, without a state lemon law by the way which is window dressing, or
it's up to the CONSUMER, not "them", whether to elect for a full refund
of every dime or a whole new unit (not some used sellphone from a refurb
shop, for instance). The sellphone business is rampantly in breach....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_50.html

FTC, tasked with its enforcement but ignoring it as much as possible in
the Corporate States of America, has a little book to read explaining it
to even the stupidest company bureaucrats.

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-federal-
warranty-law

Did you know if they say you HAVE to use a special brand of motor oil or
printer paper, they MUST, by law, give it to you for free for the life of
the item? Think about that, the next time you're buying a $55 HP printer
cartridge that's price fixed in every store and it takes hackers to crack
open to refill. Lots of stuff needs to be tested by class action suits
that aren't.....well.....yet.

.....and you thought Microsoft gave you free bug fixes because they love
you.....ha!

 

[Fred]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in news:8rf3f0F340U1
@mid.individual.net:

Then
if a customer tries to return the board, having failed to take note, it
will be their problem, not the discounters. If the discounter fails to
properly describe the board, then they should have to provide a refund.

From the FTC manual.....

"The implied warranty of merchantability is a merchant's basic promise
that the goods sold will do what they are supposed to do and that there
is nothing significantly wrong with them. In other words, it is an
implied promise that the goods are fit to be sold. The law says that
merchants make this promise automatically every time they sell a product
they are in business to sell. For example, if you, as an appliance
retailer, sell an oven, you are promising that the oven is in proper
condition for sale because it will do what ovens are supposed to do—bake
food at controlled temperatures selected by the buyer. If the oven does
not heat, or if it heats without proper temperature control, then the
oven is not fit for sale as an oven, and your implied warranty of
merchantability would be breached. In such a case, the law requires you
to provide a remedy so that the buyer gets a working oven."

Notice, too, it says MERCHANT, not manufacturer. Merchants have told us
all our lives they are not responsible for anything wrong with what they
sell and we must contact the manufacturer for any resolution, like
replacement or refunds. This is simply NOT TRUE! More BS! Says so
right in their own manual from the Federal regulators.

"No" is also not an answer. I got a "No" from my Smart car merchant when
I asked him about replacing the obviously defective crazing Makrolon
sunroof (same plastic as DVD). The sun's UV eats it causing internal gas
to create first bubbles then tiny cracks as the bubble pressure splits
the cheap plastic. It's $1,400 for the local Mercedes dealer to replace
it farmed out to a local glass shop. $1400 is worth fighting for. So,
after the service manager said of my written warranty that expired 3
months earlier, "When it's over, it's OVER!" Well, as anyone can see the
defective materials used to make the sunroof, Mayer Chemical's Makrolon
made by Webasto for Daimler-Benz, is a breach of Merchantability. I
called the US Distributor, Penske Automotive AKA SmartUSA on their
"customer service" line and offered to FAX them the FTC manual above. It
was unnecessary after the company lawyers decided it was more economical
to replace my defective product, that SHOULD have all been recalled but
hasn't, rather than try to explain it to a Federal judge. The dealer,
grudgingly, replaced the roof and charged Penske for it. He wondered
aloud how I "got away with it", his words. He now has a neatly printed
FTC manual explaining to him his responsibilities to his customers, just
like Roger's SmartUSA, hand-printed and hand-delivered by me and my
eyewitness...in case he needs to be reminded in some future courtroom
that he, in fact, had it put in his hand for his enlightenment....like my
Yamaha jetski dealer...(c;]

We really aren't helpless....just ignorant, stupid and mis or un-
informed....

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I first learned about the "warranty of implied merchantability" and related
common-law consumer protections over 30 years ago in an article in -- of all
magazines -- "High Fidelity". I still have a copy of it.

It's nice to see that others are aware of the protections that dealers and
manufacturers wish to disown.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Fred wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in news:8rf3f0F340U1
@mid.individual.net:

Then
if a customer tries to return the board, having failed to take note, it
will be their problem, not the discounters. If the discounter fails to
properly describe the board, then they should have to provide a refund.


From the FTC manual.....

"The implied warranty of merchantability is a merchant's basic promise
that the goods sold will do what they are supposed to do and that there
is nothing significantly wrong with them. In other words, it is an
implied promise that the goods are fit to be sold. The law says that
merchants make this promise automatically every time they sell a product
they are in business to sell. For example, if you, as an appliance
retailer, sell an oven, you are promising that the oven is in proper
condition for sale because it will do what ovens are supposed to do—bake
food at controlled temperatures selected by the buyer. If the oven does
not heat, or if it heats without proper temperature control, then the
oven is not fit for sale as an oven, and your implied warranty of
merchantability would be breached. In such a case, the law requires you
to provide a remedy so that the buyer gets a working oven."

Notice, too, it says MERCHANT, not manufacturer. Merchants have told us
all our lives they are not responsible for anything wrong with what they
sell and we must contact the manufacturer for any resolution, like
replacement or refunds. This is simply NOT TRUE! More BS! Says so
right in their own manual from the Federal regulators.

"No" is also not an answer. I got a "No" from my Smart car merchant when
I asked him about replacing the obviously defective crazing Makrolon
sunroof (same plastic as DVD). The sun's UV eats it causing internal gas
to create first bubbles then tiny cracks as the bubble pressure splits
the cheap plastic. It's $1,400 for the local Mercedes dealer to replace
it farmed out to a local glass shop. $1400 is worth fighting for. So,
after the service manager said of my written warranty that expired 3
months earlier, "When it's over, it's OVER!" Well, as anyone can see the
defective materials used to make the sunroof, Mayer Chemical's Makrolon
made by Webasto for Daimler-Benz, is a breach of Merchantability. I
called the US Distributor, Penske Automotive AKA SmartUSA on their
"customer service" line and offered to FAX them the FTC manual above. It
was unnecessary after the company lawyers decided it was more economical
to replace my defective product, that SHOULD have all been recalled but
hasn't, rather than try to explain it to a Federal judge. The dealer,
grudgingly, replaced the roof and charged Penske for it. He wondered
aloud how I "got away with it", his words. He now has a neatly printed
FTC manual explaining to him his responsibilities to his customers, just
like Roger's SmartUSA, hand-printed and hand-delivered by me and my
eyewitness...in case he needs to be reminded in some future courtroom
that he, in fact, had it put in his hand for his enlightenment....like my
Yamaha jetski dealer...(c;]

We really aren't helpless....just ignorant, stupid and mis or un-
informed....

She doesn't want your titles, and she isn't in the US Larry.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/02/2011 5:23 AM, Fred wrote:

Sylvia Else<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in news:8rf3f0F340U1
@mid.individual.net:

Then
if a customer tries to return the board, having failed to take note, it
will be their problem, not the discounters. If the discounter fails to
properly describe the board, then they should have to provide a refund.


You need to read Federal Law 15USC50 section 2300. What you propose is
not allowed when items are sold to the consumer. Goods are expected, by
Federal Law, to be fully functional with no known issues with design,
material or workmanship BEFORE you purchase V1.00.

But what does "fully functional" mean? I'd be surprised if it meant
"containing every function the consumer desires." I would expect it to
mean something along the lines of "containing full functionality of
every function it's described as containing, or that one would
reasonably expect it to contain."

Version 1.0 certainly should have been fully functional, and anyone who
bought one without notice of its flaws is clearly protected by the
legislation. But I can see nothing to stop a vendor from deleting
functionality from the specification before selling a product. The
product is then fully functional, according to its specification. At
most the vendor must ensure that the customer is on notice of the change
to the specification before the sale is concluded.

It's an amazing law, and every American needs to research it. I
successfully returned an $8,400 Yamaha Waverunner that was poorly
designed in 1997 and got a full refund. Being told you can't do that or
this is simply a lie....to the informed consumer. There's no exclusion
in the law for BS...(c;]

Every defective board sold is in violation of the "Implied Warranty of
Merchantability" and they know it. They're depending on consumers simply
knuckling under and believing the company BS about implied warranty
disclaimers that are in ever written warranty you ever get....which are
NOT permitted under the law. It's why Walmart cheerfully refunds your
money on the bad toaster, even out of the written short warranty.
Implied warranties go BEYOND the written warranty by at least 4 years, as
tested in court.

We have implied warranties of merchantability in Australia too. Indeed,
they're now common in many jurisdictions, and it's not possible for the
supplier to contract out of liability under the warranty. But if I'm a
car dealer, and I have a new car to sell that has been scratched, all I
need do is ensure that the contract of sale states that what is being
sold is a scratched car, and the consumer has no grounds for complaint.

Sylvia.

 

[Fred]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in news:8rgr3rFt36U1
@mid.individual.net:

But what does "fully functional" mean? I'd be surprised if it meant
"containing every function the consumer desires." I would expect it to
mean something along the lines of "containing full functionality of
every function it's described as containing, or that one would
reasonably expect it to contain."

Ask the judge.....(c;]

 

[whit3rd]

On Feb 8, 10:26 pm, Fred <nob...@home.com> wrote:

bob urz <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote innews:iis2nv$2kn$1@speranza.aioe.org:

http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=1986

"Computers can be designed in a way that avoids the problem."

Yeah, only buy ones that have AMD processors...hee hee.

Read the full article, it says the problem is in a support chip that
has 7 SATA ports, in that five of 'em age and degrade. If your
chip goes in a laptop with two or fewer SATA devices, it's
just an issue of wiring to the ports that don't have any known
faults. The folk who were expecting their chipsets for
a production schedule care more about promptness than
about the unused features that are at fault.

There's nothing unsound about using the batches without
the fix, in something like a MacBook Air (only ONE SATA device).

 

[whit3rd]

On Feb 9, 10:37 am, Fred <nob...@home.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in news:8rf3f0F340U1
@mid.individual.net:

From the FTC manual.....

"The implied warranty of merchantability is a merchant's basic promise
that the goods sold will do what they are supposed to do

.. about replacing the obviously defective crazing Makrolon
sunroof (same plastic as DVD).  The sun's UV eats it
... the company lawyers decided it was more economical
to replace my defective product,...  The dealer,
grudgingly, replaced the roof and charged Penske for it.  He wondered
aloud how I "got away with it", his words.

Oh, go easy on the dealer; he isn't a Penske employee, just a local
guy who has a contract to do the warranty repairs and get Penske
reimbursement. He can't be held liable (it's the manufacturer's
warranty,
he's not the manufacturer), and he can't usefully argue with Penske
either (or he'd jeopardize his contract). You did the right thing
going to the manufacturer.