Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:4287 comp.sys.intel:625
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!rutgers!att!whuts!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!tanner
From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Erratum 21 (Was: Re: SCO Xenix System Hang)
Message-ID: <7067@ki4pv.uucp>
Date: 26 Dec 88 13:02:06 GMT
References: <766@wasatch.UUCP> <329@bilver.UUCP> <832@ramz.UUCP> <17383@conexch.UUCP>
Organization: Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Beer Hall and Computer Store
Lines: 11

In article <17383@conexch.UUCP>, root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes:
) It would seem reasonable to approach Intel about replacing a buggy
) chip with one of their new DX parts.  How could they refuse?

I suppose that they could refuse in the same way that they refused to
replace the parts which didn't work in "native" mode.  If they refuse
to replace an alleged "32-bit" CPU which doesn't work in 32-bit mode,
surely they can refuse to replace for something minor like this!
-- 
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner