From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 24 15:11: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from stevenson.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (stevenson144.cogsci.ed.ac.uk [129.215.144.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3DE15261; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:10:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk) Received: from doyle.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (richard@doyle [129.215.110.29]) by stevenson.cogsci.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA01479; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:09:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:09:58 +0100 Message-Id: <550.199908242209@doyle.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> From: Richard Tobin Subject: Re: Softupdates reliability? To: "Brian F. Feldman" , Stephen McKay In-Reply-To: Brian F. Feldman's message of Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Organization: just say no Cc: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 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? -- Richard To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message