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