> On 2016-10-14, at 13:42, Francesco Messineo <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. True. I think even if we had a subjectively large sample, we still neither have a picture big enough nor properly acquired and retained data. > None of us "lives" by repairing electronics from the '80s (or some of you still can maybe?) I did it for a living long enough to get enough ;-) but I still - occasionally - refurbish some of those. > 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. Some were more common than the other so it was helpful but still instinctive rather than solid data. P. S. But I totally agree with your CIA being the most common failure in the 64 :-) -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2016-10-14 13:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.