Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 386 chip "hangs" when in protected mode and 387 in place SC
Message-ID: <1990Aug17.073456.27399@amd.com>
Date: 17 Aug 90 07:34:56 GMT
References: <504@lafayet.UUCP> <32775@cup.portal.com> <1990Aug14.155339@gauss.llnl.gov>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Distribution: na
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 13

In article <1990Aug14.155339@gauss.llnl.gov> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes:
|  Why should anyone pay to get a replacement for a defective chip?  The
|buggy chips don't operate as advertised.  If Intel refuses to replace the
|them free of charge, it strikes me that they're liable to get sued on grounds
|of fraud ...  At the very least they'll generate some very bad customer
|feelings.

Do you think it is possible for Intel to generate any more bad customer
feelings than they already have?

--
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
Were the Americans of Japanese descent interned during WWII hostages?