There doesn't have to be more than an hour of downtime. The boards have not yet failed, it's just likely that they will within 3 years. Also, it's only to 3GB SATA ports that have an issue, the pair of 6GB ports work fine. Finally, you can wait until replacement boards are available, take it to the store and exchange it. The only downtime is for you to remove the board, exchange it at the place of purchase, and reinstall it. If you purchased mail order, you can buy a new one, then get a refund on your old one. You're either temporarily down, or temporarily out some money, but you get to choose.
boards are replaced whole. almost no one works at the board level anymore.
You might want to let the companies hiring techs who do component level repair know about that.
In the field, it's all board/module level, but they don't just take those boards and toss them out, they send them back to the manufacturer or a repair depot where the majority of them are repaired, only those that are too badly damaged or no longer needed are scrapped.
Yes they can. That's how almost every PCB made is repaired. Most components today are surface mount, the pins don't go through any layers of the board.
I'll take at most 10 mins with the right equipment. The people getting paid to do that aren't getting $60/hr, they might be getting $20-$30/hr IF they're in the US. So, how much labor cost is that? In all likelihood, these boards will be boxed up, shipped back to China repaired by people making a whole lot less than that.
The costs I cited include shipping, labor, packaging, etc. Even if I'm way low on the costs, and it costs $50 per board including shipping, packaging, labor, etc. that's still 1/3 to 1/6 what those boards sell for.
I know this is the internet, and slashdot isn't what it used to be, so this is asking a lot, but don't post about things you clearly know nothing about.
First, you don't scrap a $100 motherboard over the labor cost of removing and replacing one component (which Intel is providing for free). I'll cost at most $10 to replace the chipset, probably less than $5. Add another $5-$10 for testing and packaging, and for under $20 cost to the manufacturer you have motherboard that you can sell for a whole lot more than $20.
Second, these boards typically start upwards of $100 and go up to $300
Third, at the very least, they'll cut the traces going to the 3Gb SATA ports and/or remove those ports, re-label the board with different model number, put on an updated BIOS that disables the 3Gb SATA, and sell them to a secondary market with only the 6Gb SATA ports active. These could be sold in markets were prices are lower, sold to a small clone vendor building cheap systems, or sold retail as "refurbished" at a discounted price.
Anyway you look at it, most of these boards are not simply going to be scrapped.
These motherboards will not be scrapped. The manufacturers have the tools and facilities to remove the defective chips and replace them. The defective chips may be scrapped, but the boards will be refurbished and used as replacement units.
More on the extrapolation errors. From a practical standpoint, the difference between 7% geometric growth for 6 months and increasing market share ~1% per month for 6 months is fairly small in this instance. 17% * (1.07 ^ 6) = 25.5% vs ~23%. Either of which satisfies my criteria of being "near 25%" in 6 months, and given the trend of the last few months, is entirely possible. 23% in ~6 months is in fact likely, although by no means certain. Assuming Firefox remains (as it has) very near 25%, then Firefox + Chrome + Safari + Opera are likely to exceed 50% combined market in ~6 months, although it may take 9 months.
Had you bothered to ask for clarification rather than asserting I was wrong and using bogus statistics and faulty assumptions in an attempt to show how wrong I was, I would have gladly explained it sooner. However, you were more interested in showing how flawed my statement was rather than actually considering that I might actually have some idea of what I'm talking about.
No, because you made an assumption about the extrapolation that the math (and statistic trend projection) don't support. You assumed a 7% monthly growth indefinitely. I never made such a claim.
There are many reasons that 6 months is ok, but 27 months is not. The first is that clearly by 27 months, you've exceeded 100%, which isn't possible. You can only sustain a growth curve on a limited result for a short time. As you approach the limit, the growth must slow down, and eventually stop.
You also assumed geometric growth, 7% per month. While that's the current value, my numbers are not based upon geometric growth, but rather short term linear growth, that is increasing their market share approximately 1% per month. By the time they're approaching 25% market share, that's only 4% geometric growth.
Note also that I said about 6 months, meaning that I don't expect it happen in exactly 6 months, it may take 9.
Your assumptions about my statement are the flaw, not my initial statement.
You got the math correct, and you're correct that it could level out. My estimate allows for it leveling out. Granted, it's only a ballpark estimate, but at least you understood the basis.
No, I'm not doing it incorrectly. Short term growth trends which are well below some limit are completely sustainable, and in practice are usually sustained until they start to approach their peak saturation. Also, it's not necessary for them to sustain a 7% monthly growth to achieve the result I stated. They're currently gaining approximately 1% of the traffic per month. While that's currently 7%, the percentage growth needed to gain an additional 1% traffic volume will decrease from 7% to about 4% over the next 6--9 months. Nor do they need to gain the same 1% of traffic volume every month to actually reach a total approaching 25%.
Therefore, my 6-9 month trend extrapolation is completely valid and likely, but by no means certain. The other responder's comments and extrapolations are not what I stated, and they are not valid. His calculations are covered by the referenced XKCD, however, mine are not because mine are actually based upon proper trend prediction statistics, not some arbitrary constant growth.
Now, go learn something about statistics and get back to me when you have a valid criticism of my extrapolation.
And you keep ignoring that if their equipment supports v6, then having a v4 address (even if it was formerly reserved) does not cause a problem. They simply connect using v6. The v4 address is only for people who don't have v4 capability (either in their equip, or from their ISP). You can continue to ignore that fact, but it won't make you correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're buying insurance, risk has no price. It may cost you, but it has no price.
Parent poster doesn't have a girlfriend or he would know there is no such thing as free sex.
PP obviously hasn't had a one night stand or he would know that there is.
Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
Your sig is out of date. The renewal fee is $15.
...prostitution has been competing against free for thousands of years, and it show no signs of a slowdown.
...radio and broadcast TV are free. Cable, Satellite, and PPV are alive and well.
...there is that whole FOSS thing. Microsoft and Apple just announced they earned how many Billions?
You just need a business model that allows you offer more value than "free".
Send all your embarrassing and negative info about the city government to Wikileaks or Openleaks.
And you clearly didn't RTFA.
There doesn't have to be more than an hour of downtime. The boards have not yet failed, it's just likely that they will within 3 years. Also, it's only to 3GB SATA ports that have an issue, the pair of 6GB ports work fine. Finally, you can wait until replacement boards are available, take it to the store and exchange it. The only downtime is for you to remove the board, exchange it at the place of purchase, and reinstall it. If you purchased mail order, you can buy a new one, then get a refund on your old one. You're either temporarily down, or temporarily out some money, but you get to choose.
boards are replaced whole. almost no one works at the board level anymore.
You might want to let the companies hiring techs who do component level repair know about that.
In the field, it's all board/module level, but they don't just take those boards and toss them out, they send them back to the manufacturer or a repair depot where the majority of them are repaired, only those that are too badly damaged or no longer needed are scrapped.
Since you quoted Douglas Adams, you can throw out whatever you want.
Comprehension fail! There is labor and material costs cited in my post.
Yes they can. That's how almost every PCB made is repaired. Most components today are surface mount, the pins don't go through any layers of the board.
See my reply to the other commenter.
I'll take at most 10 mins with the right equipment. The people getting paid to do that aren't getting $60/hr, they might be getting $20-$30/hr IF they're in the US. So, how much labor cost is that? In all likelihood, these boards will be boxed up, shipped back to China repaired by people making a whole lot less than that.
The costs I cited include shipping, labor, packaging, etc. Even if I'm way low on the costs, and it costs $50 per board including shipping, packaging, labor, etc. that's still 1/3 to 1/6 what those boards sell for.
I know this is the internet, and slashdot isn't what it used to be, so this is asking a lot, but don't post about things you clearly know nothing about.
First, you don't scrap a $100 motherboard over the labor cost of removing and replacing one component (which Intel is providing for free). I'll cost at most $10 to replace the chipset, probably less than $5. Add another $5-$10 for testing and packaging, and for under $20 cost to the manufacturer you have motherboard that you can sell for a whole lot more than $20.
Second, these boards typically start upwards of $100 and go up to $300
Third, at the very least, they'll cut the traces going to the 3Gb SATA ports and/or remove those ports, re-label the board with different model number, put on an updated BIOS that disables the 3Gb SATA, and sell them to a secondary market with only the 6Gb SATA ports active. These could be sold in markets were prices are lower, sold to a small clone vendor building cheap systems, or sold retail as "refurbished" at a discounted price.
Anyway you look at it, most of these boards are not simply going to be scrapped.
These motherboards will not be scrapped. The manufacturers have the tools and facilities to remove the defective chips and replace them. The defective chips may be scrapped, but the boards will be refurbished and used as replacement units.
I assume you were trying to make fun of AT&T's data throughput. You missed.
EBCDIC? Hello, no one supports EBCDIC. Maybe you mean ASCII.
More on the extrapolation errors. From a practical standpoint, the difference between 7% geometric growth for 6 months and increasing market share ~1% per month for 6 months is fairly small in this instance. 17% * (1.07 ^ 6) = 25.5% vs ~23%. Either of which satisfies my criteria of being "near 25%" in 6 months, and given the trend of the last few months, is entirely possible. 23% in ~6 months is in fact likely, although by no means certain. Assuming Firefox remains (as it has) very near 25%, then Firefox + Chrome + Safari + Opera are likely to exceed 50% combined market in ~6 months, although it may take 9 months.
Had you bothered to ask for clarification rather than asserting I was wrong and using bogus statistics and faulty assumptions in an attempt to show how wrong I was, I would have gladly explained it sooner. However, you were more interested in showing how flawed my statement was rather than actually considering that I might actually have some idea of what I'm talking about.
No, because you made an assumption about the extrapolation that the math (and statistic trend projection) don't support. You assumed a 7% monthly growth indefinitely. I never made such a claim. There are many reasons that 6 months is ok, but 27 months is not. The first is that clearly by 27 months, you've exceeded 100%, which isn't possible. You can only sustain a growth curve on a limited result for a short time. As you approach the limit, the growth must slow down, and eventually stop. You also assumed geometric growth, 7% per month. While that's the current value, my numbers are not based upon geometric growth, but rather short term linear growth, that is increasing their market share approximately 1% per month. By the time they're approaching 25% market share, that's only 4% geometric growth. Note also that I said about 6 months, meaning that I don't expect it happen in exactly 6 months, it may take 9. Your assumptions about my statement are the flaw, not my initial statement.
To whom were you addressing that comment?
You got the math correct, and you're correct that it could level out. My estimate allows for it leveling out. Granted, it's only a ballpark estimate, but at least you understood the basis.
Parent is not correct, see my detailed reply to another commenter.
No, I'm not doing it incorrectly. Short term growth trends which are well below some limit are completely sustainable, and in practice are usually sustained until they start to approach their peak saturation. Also, it's not necessary for them to sustain a 7% monthly growth to achieve the result I stated. They're currently gaining approximately 1% of the traffic per month. While that's currently 7%, the percentage growth needed to gain an additional 1% traffic volume will decrease from 7% to about 4% over the next 6--9 months. Nor do they need to gain the same 1% of traffic volume every month to actually reach a total approaching 25%.
Therefore, my 6-9 month trend extrapolation is completely valid and likely, but by no means certain. The other responder's comments and extrapolations are not what I stated, and they are not valid. His calculations are covered by the referenced XKCD, however, mine are not because mine are actually based upon proper trend prediction statistics, not some arbitrary constant growth.
Now, go learn something about statistics and get back to me when you have a valid criticism of my extrapolation.
And you keep ignoring that if their equipment supports v6, then having a v4 address (even if it was formerly reserved) does not cause a problem. They simply connect using v6. The v4 address is only for people who don't have v4 capability (either in their equip, or from their ISP). You can continue to ignore that fact, but it won't make you correct.
And again you fail. Math is correct this time, but the statistical extrapolation is flawed.