From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 24 17:43: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510C114BCE; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:43:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA48812; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:39:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: green owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:39:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brian F. Feldman" To: Richard Tobin Cc: Stephen McKay , Peter Jeremy , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdates reliability? In-Reply-To: <550.199908242209@doyle.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Richard Tobin wrote: > > > Origin = "AuthenticAMD" Id = 0x580 Stepping=0 > > > You have one of the first K6-2s off the line. There were definite problems > > with these, and as such, they were specially distinguished by having 66 > > printed on top. > > I have a 0x580 which has had no problems at all. I'm pretty certain > it doesn't have 66 stamped on it. Are they all supposed to have this, > or were they tested and the dodgy ones stamped 66? It must be the latter. My 0x580 had the 66, so it must be that the dodgy ones got labelled 66 and not all the 0x580s were defective. > > -- Richard > -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman / "Any sufficiently advanced bug is \ green@FreeBSD.org | indistinguishable from a feature." | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! \ -- Rich Kulawiec / To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message