In message <6.2.1.2.0.20050409211205.021cc1a8@pop3.pipeline.com.au> Jim Robertson wrote: > I also have some specially designed prototyping boards with 18F8720 that came > from Canada and these cost me fair dollars. Now I find that the silicon is > also screwed and they are 100% unserviceable to me. I think I will take these > to the next microchip seminar and demonstrate their effectiveness as ninja > throwing stars. Be nice :) > I have over a 1000 WARP-13s out there that have the "can't use the TBLWT > instruction (i.e. bootloader) if they are code protected" bug. This means I > cannot > offer free firmware updates the way I had promised. I look bad! > > This was a major reason why I have given up selling the WARP-13. Wow. That's bad... > If it was good enough for intel to be forced to replace Pentiums with the FDIV > bug then it is sure good enough for microchip to replace its bugged silicon. I think Andy Grove (one of Intel's management staff iirc) publicly said that you "had more chance of being hit by a meteor than suffering from the FDIV bug". Then a few folks proved that the chance of getting nailed by FDIV was somewhat higher than being hit by a meteor... > There are trade practice's laws in most countries that require goods to be > fit for the purpose the manufacturer sells them for. Sale of Goods Act, 1974, as amended. I'm not sure how (or even if) it applies to buying stuff from a company that's based in the USA, but Mchip do have a sales office in the UK... > I made a mistake in purchasing my PICs from overseas suppliers and this > makes it difficult for me to pursue the matter further but it would be > interesting > if a class action came along... I'd join in, but most of my chips are samples anyway.. two of my 1320s (the two I bought originally) got sent back after I found that they wouldn't run above 2MHz (they were SERIOUSLY bugged) - the other six are samples. I ordered three back in early '04 and ended up with B1 silicon. The second batch were ordered in January this year and were still B1 silicon. It's easy to prove that Microchip knew about the bug at least as early as May 2004 and that B4 silicon was available at around the same time (check the WayBack Machine at web.archive.org if you want to confirm it). So why in the middle of January - nearly nine months (probably more than that actually) after the bug was discovered - were Mchip and their distributors still sending out chips which they KNEW DAMN WELL were defective to the point of being near useless? I can't find the packing slip for the first batch of samples (the ones from early '04) but the packing slip for the second batch is dated 01-17-2005. January 17th this year. I've got (from the same order): 3x 18LF1320/SO Datecode 04302PC 3x 18LF1320/SS Datecode 04224RH 3x 18LF1320/P Datecode 041514V I haven't tested the /SOs or /SSes, but the /Ps are certainly Rev B1. I've also got a theory about why the datecodes were removed from the errata sheets - Microchip didn't want to end up having their distributors/customers rejecting B1 chips based on datecode. It's fair to assume that most customers who knew that datecode Y and later was B4 would request chips with that or a later datecode. Anyone wanna start a petition? Later. -- Phil. | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB, philpem@philpem.me.uk | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice, http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI ... Remington, shaves as close as a blade or we send the boys round. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist