I am not trying to lay the blame here, I just want to set the record straight.
Statements of the kind : "...The Net result was having an unqualified component used in the manufacture of our equipment..." Why didn't they say: "...We did not inform Atmel of our h/w mods so they did not check for compatibility issues with our specific board..." No the equipment is not unqualified exactely the same way it is not unqualified when used on our boards and all the other manufacturers' boards. It is always easy to blame someone else and that declares the level of the proffesionalism wether that is an individual or a company. Dimitri > Yes I have read the PDF Dimitrios. I am making many assumptions about the > exact process of events that occurred, just as you are making many > assumptions about what SB has done wrong. Neither of us has all the > information needed to make a completely accurate comment. I am baseing my > assumptions about SB's actions off of their comments and information > provided on their site over the last 6 months as well as my experiences > over > the last 27 years. I don't pretend to KNOW the real answer. I am only > trying > to argue in favor of SB actions due to the great support they have > provided > me. I will go on record as saying I am biased toward SB because of this > great effort and willingness to correct problems. They are a good company, > with a great product providing unheard of levels of support to their > customers, small and large. > > A reference design is just that, a reference. The people at SB know their > product and are capable of supporting a modified design if that is what > they > need to do. Give them a little credit. Dimitrious, you appear to be an > inteligent person who knows something about electronics and obviously > about > being a WISP. If you discover a design problem then let SB as well as the > rest of us know and then give them a chance to resolve your concerns. > Derogitory comments are of little use, as the success of SB rides on its > customers experiences and not on a few peoples statements. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Dimitrios Sidiropoulos > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] AirBridge Firmware release 0.01.07 > > > >> Read a little closer. Atmel supplied a functionaly similar chip, either >> produced using a different method or from a different factory, that was >> not >> directly compatible with the firmware produced by SB and did not inform >> SB >> about the substitution. > > Not exactely. > > Atmel codes the f/w for SB. > >> Atmel may or may not have been aware of the differences in the two >> chips. > > Of course they are aware of the difference. They manufacture it. > >> I don't believe that SB was accusing Atmel of any deception, but stating >> a fact that the chip was different and no notice was supplied. > > No need to, the same way they did not inform the rest of the manufacturers > that build ATMEL based APs (Compaq, 3Com, Intel, Samsung, Gemtek, Phoebe, > Belkin, SmartBridges, SMC, Tellus, Pesi, Askey, Linksys, DLink, Compex, > Zyxel...) > >> They have sholdered the full responisibility for the error >> and have worked closley with Atmel to correct the oversight as quickly >> as >> either of them could. > > Did you read the .pdf ? > > Dimitri > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of Dan Petermann >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:31 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] AirBridge Firmware release 0.01.07 >> >> >> I may be wrong but I believe that SB said that Amtel changed the >> hardware >> and SB was not aware of it. >> >> Dan Petermann >> Wyoming.com >> >> At 07:34 PM 7/23/2003 +0300, you wrote:t >>>Michael, >>> >>> > Anyone have any luck yet? >>> >>>I have my doubts regarding all those problems Smartbridges has >>> encountered. >>> >>>We use the same Atmel 510 H/W Reference Design and similar F/W to that >>> of >>>SmartBridges and all our untis perform flawless. For your information we >>>have moved about 1000 units so far. >>> >>>It amazes me how the same f/w operates so wonderfully for us and gives >>> so >>>much trouble to SB ? >>> >>>I mean there are issues one after another and since the same >>>people(ATMEL)that code f/w for us, code f/w for SB I would not think all >>>those issues are f/w related. At least not only f/w related. >>> >>>Last week I poped open a SB unit and looked around >>>I know I am not an expert but my basic electronics knowledge would not >>>allow me to place a heating element on top of the physical ethernet. >>>Doesn't the additional heat created by the heating element raise the >>> temp >>>of the etherent chip ? doesn't that change the operational structure of >>>the chip and therefore cause various missbehaviors on the ethernet side >>> ? >>> >>>I believe there are more than afew incidents and my opinion is that >>>removing the heating element form the ethernet physical will resolve >>> alot >>>of those issues. >>> >>>Also there are a couple of resistors on the SB data bus lay out. I >>> doubled >>>check the reference desing of the manufacturer (ATMEL) and there is no >>>such a thing there. >>> >>>Those are just 2 very basic observations made by the naked eye. >>> >>>When ATMEL engineers code f/w or make any h/w changes the first basic >>>assumption is that the customer (SB) followes their refference design. >>> >>>I know our new units have the new ATMEL flash and we have had absolutely >>> 0 >>>problems with that issue. >>> >>>We are located in Greece and the temp on our outdoor units goes higher >>>than 60C. Still no heat problem, why ? >>> >>>Because our OEM follows ATMEL's Reference Dessign by heart. >>> >>>SB officialy "BASHED" ATMEL last week (.pdf posted the 11th) while it is >>>strictly their fault. >>> >>>I believe if they had informed ATMEL for their h/w modifications we >>> would >>>not be talking about it now. >>> >>>For the record, this is my personal opinion and I am in no way >>> affiliated >>>with either one of the companies named above. >>> >>>Thank you >>>Dimitri >>> >>> >>> >>>The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>smartBridges <yournickname> >>>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe >>>smartBridges) >>>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >> >> >> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >> smartBridges <yournickname> >> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe >> smartBridges) >> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >> >> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >> smartBridges <yournickname> >> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe >> smartBridges) >> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >> > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
