I think... I have almost the whole product line. JC
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 11:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Sticking up for D-Link JC Question that comes to mind. How much did ya pay for that D Link switch you have and which one is it? Curious George JC Randall wrote: >Gloria: > >Here, Here... I use D-Link & SMC on my large network and not a problem >anywhere!! Boy, oh Boy am I glad I switched from SB two months ago :-) > >JC > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gloria Vester >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:24 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Sticking up for sB > >No, I haven't changed the switch yet, but again I go back to my main point >here, which is - if it is something in our system design or installation, >why is my Trango backhaul working perfectly on the same switch, same UPS, >same everything? Just because I don't use a high end managed switch >doesn't >automatically mean that the problems are coming from the D-Link. > >Gloria > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 2:14 PM >Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Sticking up for sB > > > > >>Have you tried replacing the switch by chance with a different brand? >>I think you said D Link, not the stuff you build backbones on. >>George >> >> >>Gloria Vester wrote: >> >> >> >>>Can you tell me where to find the list of MAC addresses that are being >>>recalled? I am working on my RMAs now and I have a feeling that all >>> >>> >five >of > > >>>the units I have are from the same batch. When I asked them how many >>> >>> >of >my > > >>>units to RMA, they said it was up to me and my "comfort level". I >>> >>> >don't > > >>>want to bash SB either - it is counter productive, and they are being >>> >>> >very > > >>>supportive in trying to help. But at the same time, I agree with you >>> >>> >that > > >>>it would have been more cost effective to have just recalled and >>> >>> >replaced > > >>>all the units that were suspect and saved themselves a lot of bad >>> >>> >publicity > > >>>and us a lot of lost revenue. >>> >>>I have had it pointed out to me from several different sources on this >>> >>> >list > > >>>that the problem is more than likely not with the airPoints, that is >>>probably a power issue or an environmental issue. I am not ruling that >>> >>> >out > > >>>completely, and am continuing to investigate all possibilities. But if >>> >>> >it > > >>>were something that we did wrong in our design and installation, why is >>> >>> >my > > >>>Trango backhaul working perfectly using the same power source, the same >>>cabling, the same switch, in the same temperature environment? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Gloria >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "The Wirefree Network" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:47 PM >>>Subject: [smartBridges] Sticking up for sB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I am feeling a bit guilty for hammering sB so badly...but it is there >>>>fault after all. They could have resolved this a long time ago. >>>> >>>>Here is the explanation as given to me from them (simplified version): >>>>In June there were 2 production lines putting together sB equipment. >>>>One with bad chips, one with good chips. My use of "bad chips" is my >>>>own. They call it "timing issue" chips. >>>> >>>>Prior to getting stamped with MAC addresses, the units are brought >>>> >>>> >back > > >>>>together on one line and stamped. Therefore, there is NO way to say >>>>exactly which units have the "bad chips". >>>> >>>>This is why sB is not recalling the entire series of MAC >>>>addresses...there are a bunch of good ones mixed in there as well. >>>> >>>>You may be thinking the same thing I am right now....hmmmm....why >>>>wouldn't they just go ahead and recall the whole batch?? Hindsight, >>>>they would probably have saved a lot of money in lost revenue from the >>>>bad publicity. And it would have MOST definitely saved us a TON of >>>>money, and therefore retained their good reputation from us. >>>> >>>>Bottomline: They are doing direct RMA's for all the bad June/July >>>>units. Just talk to them. We are all bitching for good reason...but >>>>just do the RMA. It is all we can do. Then hope they are really >>>>sending us good stuff this time. >>>> >>>>Sully >>>> >>>>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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
