Hello all,

If you look back through c.s.l you'll see I asked here about AMD's CPU
speed nomenclature because I bought one of Wal-Mart's "Balance"
notebooks, advertised as an Athlon XP-M 1800+, and found that it is
only running at 1.2GHz.

I've been in touch with a couple of other purchasers of this laptop
now, and one of them agreed to break his warranty seal and investigate
the ACTUAL part number etched on the CPU chip. He had the $598 model,
advertised as an "Athlon XP-M 1600+". The actual OPN on his CPU is
AHM1100AV53B, which if you refer to AMD's part# breakdown guide, is a
1.1GHz (not 1600+) mobile Athlon 4, not an XP-M.

The link to that guide is:
<http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/assets/con...n_Rev05_ENG.pdf>

In summary:

1. We have been sold an older-generation mobile Athlon 4, not the
current-generation mobile Athlon XP chip that was advertised.

2. The $598 machine sold as "1600+" is actually running at 1.1GHz,
which would make it a 1400+. It has been confirmed that it does not
have the advertised CPU in it.

3. The $698 machine sold as "1800+" is actually running at 1.2GHz,
which would make it a 1600+ if it was an XP-M. There was never a
mobile Athlon 4 made in the 1800+ speed rating, by the way. Although I
have not broken my warranty seal, I am sure that it will also not have
the advertised chip in it, based on the information above.

4. This is not an isolated one-off manufacturing error. The special
"Balance" BIOS (not available for download anywhere, but only to be
found preloaded on these machines) has been hacked to report false CPU
information on the POST screen. If you flash with the normal, generic
BIOS off ECS's web site, you see *actual* information about the chip.

I was in touch with Wal-Mart's customer service last week, and they
said they'd replace the unit. However that was before I found out the
above.

If you are affected by this issue, I encourage you to email me,
because I am going to be talking to the customer service manager for
walmart.com on Monday afternoon.

More pertinently, I would like someone who is still running with the
factory-shipped BIOS to use the "a535.exe" utility (which is really
just amiflash renamed) to save their BIOS to a file and email it to me
so that I can examine it. If someone could get it to me this weekend,
it would be a great thing.

Obviously I'm going to insist on a refund, and I'm sure Wal-Mart will
give it to me. Equally obviously, you're entitled to a refund too,
since you were shipped something other than what was advertised. But
more importantly we need to get the advertising pulled so that the OEM
who made this fraudulent product gets hit where it hurts.

Even more obviously: Do not buy this product!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> That all shouldn't be surprising. Walmart has a long history of
> selling products in special Walmart-specific sizes that have less
> content than expected so that they appear to be a better buy. (The "1
> pound" can of coffee that hasn't physically gotten smaller, but has
> less coffee in it.)

Yeah, but this is more like ordering coffee and getting chicory
war-substitute. Not only is it a slower processor, it isn't even the
RIGHT processor.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:

> The actual OPN on his CPU is
> AHM1100AV53B, which if you refer to AMD's part# breakdown guide, is a
> 1.1GHz (not 1600+) mobile Athlon 4, not an XP-M.

You have to  be careful with AMD numbers.  The 1600 does not mean the CPU
runs at 1600 MHz.  It means that it's comparable, in performance, to an
Intel P4 running at 1600 MHz.  For example, my desktop system contains an
XP 1700+ but (IIRC) the CPU is only running at a bit under 1200 MHz.

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Tim wrote:

> larwe@larwe.com (Lewin A.R.W. Edwards) writes:
> 
>
> That all shouldn't be surprising. Walmart has a long history of
> selling products in special Walmart-specific sizes that have less
> content than expected so that they appear to be a better buy. (The "1
> pound" can of coffee that hasn't physically gotten smaller, but has
> less coffee in it.)
>
> They just shaved off a few MHz and figured Walmart shoppers wouldn't
> be savvy enough to notice.
>
> Admittedly, at least on the coffee can, they do list the net weight,
> just not in giant letters below a banner that says "New!! 20% Less!!"

A few years ago, Andy Rooney on "60 Minutes" had a piece about several
coffee companies selling cans with less coffee in them, so that practice is
not limited to Wal Mart.  And it's not limited to coffee either.



--

(This space intentionally left blank)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Followup to this issue:

> 2. The $598 machine sold as "1600+" is actually running at 1.1GHz,
> which would make it a 1400+. It has been confirmed that it does not
> have the advertised CPU in it.
>
> 3. The $698 machine sold as "1800+" is actually running at 1.2GHz,
> which would make it a 1600+ if it was an XP-M. There was never a
> mobile Athlon 4 made in the 1800+ speed rating, by the way. Although I

I just spoke to the computer buyer for Wal-Mart. He physically opened
his "1800+" machine and physically confirmed that it's an old 1.2GHz
chip. Quote-unquote, they have found a "discrepancy" and they are
contacting the vendor to explain it. They are also contacting AMD to
confirm the details. Things are still kind of up in the air as to what
specifically will happen with my case, and with that of the other
person whose details I gave them, but we'll see.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:

> I just spoke to the computer buyer for Wal-Mart. He physically opened
> his "1800+" machine and physically confirmed that it's an old 1.2GHz
> chip. Quote-unquote, they have found a "discrepancy" and they are
> contacting the vendor to explain it. They are also contacting AMD to
> confirm the details. Things are still kind of up in the air as to what
> specifically will happen with my case, and with that of the other
> person whose details I gave them, but we'll see.

So perhaps Wal-Mart was cheated by the vendor?

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Keep us up to date on this.  I would start throwing around the word 'fraud'
because it sounds like someone somewhere in the Walmart pipeline is lying.

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:608b6569.0410251141.7ef68d12@posting.google.com...
> Followup to this issue:
> 
>
> I just spoke to the computer buyer for Wal-Mart. He physically opened
> his "1800+" machine and physically confirmed that it's an old 1.2GHz
> chip. Quote-unquote, they have found a "discrepancy" and they are
> contacting the vendor to explain it. They are also contacting AMD to
> confirm the details. Things are still kind of up in the air as to what
> specifically will happen with my case, and with that of the other
> person whose details I gave them, but we'll see.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Jon Cortelyou" <jcortel@not_spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8Vdfd.9933$6q2.5971@ne
wssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> Keep us up to date on this.  I would start throwing around the word 'fraud
'
> because it sounds like someone somewhere in the Walmart pipeline is lying.

Trust me, the word was used more than once in my fax of this morning.
If people actually care, I'll PDF it and put it up on my web site.

I need to stress once more: So far, I have no reason to complain about
the Wal-Mart side of things. Everything I have seen is consistent with
a fraudulent vendor. For all I know, these things are drop-shipped
direct from someone else and never see the inside of a Wal-Mart
warehouse. And the Wal-Mart people I've dealt with have all been
responsive, have acknowledged that there's a problem without trying to
invent any B.S. explanations [frankly I was expecting some of these],
and they haven't given me the brush-off (unlike ECS, who gave me what
amounted to a "no speakee English" answer, and MTS who were no
better).

Of course, it would have been HELPFUL if Wal-Mart had torn down one of
these things before committing to buy 1,000,000 of them. I don't think
that buyer will relish explaining the situation to his managers. But
the machine LOOKS like it's what it's advertised to be. It takes some
prying and poking to reveal the truth. And luck. I happen to use
Linux. On powerup, the powernow! driver prints a table of recognized
speed configurations. That was where I started to get my first sniff
of skulduggery. If I only used Windows, I might never have noticed.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:

> Of course, it would have been HELPFUL if Wal-Mart had torn down one of
> these things before committing to buy 1,000,000 of them. I don't think
> that buyer will relish explaining the situation to his managers.

How do you know they didn't?  What to stop a crooked vendor from supplying
an up to spec sample, prior to the order being placed then using
sub-standard parts in the production run?  Then again, perhaps Walmart may
have to do some sample testing of production systems.

--

(This space intentionally left blank)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> > Of course, it would have been HELPFUL if Wal-Mart had torn down one of 
>
> How do you know they didn't?  What to stop a crooked vendor from supplying

True. If they'll fake it in the first place, they may as well seed the
test pool. I just assumed that Wal-Mart would treat it like a toaster;
look at the box, it says "four slot toaster, black", look at the
toaster, it has four holes and it's black, ergo it's the right
product. Regardless of whether all four slots actually lead to heating
elements.. 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]