On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > I'd say the "meltdown" (as Gerrit called it) is at least as common. But that probably also depends on the brand. And if I am to think about it, I'd also say that I (probably - about 4ms of lack of refresh on those memcells :) had more cases when the chip was plain dead, poisoning the bus or so than cases where some cells failed but the chip was otherwise working. Summarising, I'd say the "almost always" part of your statement is what I find hard to agree with ;-) ok, everybody has different experience. None of us "lives" by repairing electronics from the '80s (or some of you still can maybe?) so it's a limited set of cases for everybody. I don't expect to be right on anything actually. I'd like to have a good statistical sample of failures to try to speed up the troubleshooting phase sometimes. But so far, my efforts were vain in this respect (I fix more test equipment than computers lately, and analog electronics can fail in some quite creative ways too). Our statistics have another problem also, we usually don't bother taking note of the working equipment we have as we do with not working ones (sometimes). I have no idea of what brand of chips are inside on some of the old computers that I have sitting here and never had to repair for example. None will ship us computers that have nothing to be fixed too :) Frank Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2016-10-14 12:01:21
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.