Post by thread:[PIC:] Microchips unacceptable act

I'm taking the unusual step of reposting almost in its entirety something that Olin just posted with a new subject line.. The aim is to get people's comments and hopefully Microchip's notice I'm assuming that Olin has it all correct here. If he hasn't then my apologies for the forthcoming torrent of complaint. If he has, then an apology to the PIC community is in order. ________________________ OLIN said: Microchip has finally fessed up that the 18F1320/1220 does not run at full speed, over 7 months after I sent them a test case demonstrating this problem. Better late than never I guess. The new errata was apparently released Friday 24 October, and is available at http://www.microchip.com/download/lit/suppdoc/errata/80160b.pdf. The problem is even worse than I thought. The maximum speed is only 4MHz, unless you don't mind an occasional "corruption of fetched instructions". The good news is that new silicon is being tested and seems to work now. I can understand an occasional screwup getting shipped. It's a little harder to understand how something this blatantly busted ever made it out the door. What really pisses me off, however, is that they apparently waited until they had fixed silicon in hand before admitting the problem. That's inexcusable. ________________________ Russell says: Microchip, if you are listening - This is no way to run a business! This is no way to treat your customers. This is no way to get and retain brand loyalty. This is an excellent way to get serious users looking at other brands. Anyone can make mistakes. Silicon happens. But when you know that there is a problem for 7 months (and if you don't you should) and don't tell people then you have caused many years of misery. People slaving over hot oscilloscopes (or cold LCD ones). Design rechecks. Hours of debugging sessions. Hair pulled out and more. A processor that is intermittently flaky at the basic level is the most horrendous of faults. Quite what the objective of such a response is unclear. I can't see it's going to win you brand loyalty, customers or sales. I can imagine people leaving. Don't do it! Tell it like it is! Keep the customer informed! Do unto others .... !! Anyone from Microchip want to explain themselves and/or say sorry ?? Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

> I'm assuming that Olin has it all correct here. He has, at least assuming Microchip's errata document is correct. I have updated my products page, I now advertise the 18F1220/1320 as 4 MHz chips :( What worries me is (as I asked aloud before): does this apply to these chips only, or are more 18F chips suspect? According to Olin's story the errata documents are *not* enough to go by. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

welcome to the club Quoting Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTPARADISE.NET.NZ>: {Quote hidden}> I'm taking the unusual step of reposting almost in its entirety something > that Olin just posted with a new subject line.. > The aim is to get people's comments and hopefully Microchip's notice > > I'm assuming that Olin has it all correct here. > If he hasn't then my apologies for the forthcoming torrent of complaint. > If he has, then an apology to the PIC community is in order. > > ________________________ > > OLIN said: > > Microchip has finally fessed up that the 18F1320/1220 does not run at full > speed, over 7 months after I sent them a test case demonstrating this > problem. Better late than never I guess. The new errata was apparently > released Friday 24 October, and is available at > http://www.microchip.com/download/lit/suppdoc/errata/80160b.pdf. > > The problem is even worse than I thought. The maximum speed is only 4MHz, > unless you don't mind an occasional "corruption of fetched instructions". > > The good news is that new silicon is being tested and seems to work now. > > I can understand an occasional screwup getting shipped. It's a little > harder to understand how something this blatantly busted ever made it out > the door. What really pisses me off, however, is that they apparently > waited until they had fixed silicon in hand before admitting the problem. > That's inexcusable. > > ________________________ > > Russell says: > > Microchip, if you are listening - > > This is no way to run a business! > This is no way to treat your customers. > This is no way to get and retain brand loyalty. > This is an excellent way to get serious users looking at other brands. > > Anyone can make mistakes. > Silicon happens. > But when you know that there is a problem for 7 months (and if you don't > you should) and don't tell people then you have caused many years of misery. > People slaving over hot oscilloscopes (or cold LCD ones). Design rechecks. > Hours of debugging sessions. > Hair pulled out and more. > A processor that is intermittently flaky at the basic level is the most > horrendous of faults. > > Quite what the objective of such a response is unclear. > I can't see it's going to win you brand loyalty, customers or sales. > I can imagine people leaving. > > Don't do it! > Tell it like it is! > Keep the customer informed! > Do unto others .... !! > > Anyone from Microchip want to explain themselves and/or say sorry ?? > > > Russell McMahon > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics