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. Atmel may or may not have been aware of the differences in the two chips. 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. 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.
-----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
