Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: My AT is still alive.
Message-ID: <398@terak.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 17:35:53 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.398
Posted: Tue Feb 26 17:35:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 03:28:52 EST
References: <676@ecsvax.UUCP> <4900009@uok.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 18

> From David L. Sutton, Mktg. Sales Asst., Nat'l Accounts Div.  IBM:
>
> 	By the way, the reason for the AT delays in shipping is
> not because of disk mechanical problems, but because until now IBM
> could not get enough disks from its source to pass their quality
> controls - atleast that is what I have been told.

I is confused!  I don't have an AT, working or not, but I can't figure
out what the above statement means.

  a) IBM won't accept the disks, even though they have no problems?
  b) The disks that CMI is now shipping to IBM are even worse than
     the ones reportedly failing in the field?
  c) Because of the field reports, IBM has instituted more stringent
     quality control, and is now catching the bad drives?
  d) Just plain old double-speak?
-- 
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug