Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 80386 Bug - Does anybody else have it?
Message-ID: <715@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 29 Feb 88 23:20:04 GMT
References: <4160002@wdl1.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 21

In article <4160002@wdl1.UUCP> rhj@wdl1.UUCP (Bob Jones) writes:
[about a bad '386 in a Proteus box]
>Is anybody out there in a similar predicament? Does anybody know
>when Intel will clean up after their mess? I want to run Windows 386,
>but can't until I get a good chip :(...!

*INTEL* clean up after their mess?  Hey, guy, it's this Proteus outfit
that's got the mess - they've tried to pass off a '386 that they KNEW
didn't work properly to you.  Intel's been handling the buggy '386
business as well as can be expected, I think.  It's too bad that some
clone manufacturers have decided to go for expediency and a quick
buck, instead of being truly concerned about their customer - after
all, only one out of ten people will ever even have a CHANCE of
seeing that bug, so why not save a few bucks and stuff these here
bad chips in?  As far as I'm concerned, this kind of stuff is enough
to write off a clone manufacturer from the first.

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame