Conference ssag::ask_ssag

    I think the only difference in the VA vs VW is that one talks 16 bit
    and the other talks 8bit.  They are both 4.3GB

    I don't suppose anyone has one of each and can take a look with disklabel
    or whatever?  I'd do it myself if I could dial into the site.
    

    Frank,
    
     Yes they are both the same size.  The label was screwed up some time
    back, but was corrected.  However, since I suspect that these are  
    recently built, the old label printing file may have replaced the
    correct file at the mfg site.
    
     Somebody called me about this a few months ago, so I checked the
    engineering drawing history.  The present file (rev AV) says 4.3Gb.  
    On one of the old rev drawings, I found 4.0Gb....
    
     Well, I just looked again.  ECO STORME-CX004 (Ctrl# 3981), changed
    4.0GB to 4.3GB.  This ECO took the drawing from rev R to rev S.  The
    ECO was 1st issued 22 Dec 1995.  So this was corrected a long time ago.
    I have a RZ29B-VW in my office - 4.0GB on the label, date code
    mid-1995, so it has been a real problem.
    
     I wish I could remember who called...  It may have been today's mfg
    engineer for the product - asking why does the label say "4.0" for
    -VW's when it says "4.3" for the -VA's - or more to the point "Why are
    YOU calling out "4.0" on your drawings?"  My answer, my drawings DO
    call out "4.3".....  It's late Friday PM, my memory is probably playing
    tricks!  
    
     Why did we have 4.0GB originally on the label?  Look at VTX CEO.  It
    still describes the RZ29B-VW as a 4GB drive....  
    
    			Bill

    re: .2 
    
    Frank,
    
     We had a notes collision there....  My first response was to .0.
    
     We have later model -VA's here with 4.3GB.  I have an OLD mid-1995 -VW
    with 4.0GB.  We've been looking for the last �hour for a newer -VW, but
    had no luck.  We've had some since we were doing some FCC testing on it 
    last year.  I KNOW I've seen -VW's with 4.3GB.  I wanted to check the 
    date code and MFG site.  As you may or may not know, SBB production was 
    in CXO until Q1 this year.  That's who we worked the correction with.  
    All of the CXO label files were transferred to NIO.  However I suspect 
    that down rev files were transferred too!  (and are being used.)
    
     NOTE: These labels are printed using what's called a Zebra printer. 
    The label starts blank and is filled in by the software driving the
    printer.  We have too many variations (and changes) to have a unique
    label for each drive.  The RZ29B-VW is one of 40+ variations of a wide
    SBB.  The RZ29B-VA is one of 20+ variations....  So what we do is
    specify on our engineering drawings what information goes where for
    which drive.  The Zebra printing process has really helped us meet the
    every changing demands on labels.  The 1x1 label we're talking about
    didn't use to exist, then it only had three or 4 items, now it has LOTS
    of details!  
    
     In the CXO model, when a problem like this came up, I would have called 
    the mfg engineer, asked him to print me some labels, and the labels
    would have been on my desk in no time at all.  (Or if he couldn't come
    to my desk, I'd walk up to his!)  I don't know if NIO allows the mfg
    engineer to have a printer in his office...  In fact I've heard that
    the mfg eng doesn't work the labels, someone else does, but that's
    hearsay.
    
     What's the bottom line?  I'd contact customer satisfaction or quality 
    in NIO and ask them for some correct labels!  Since I'm not sure the
    exact people, I am NOT going to put their names in here....  If I
    remember, I'll call NIO next week to check on this....
    
    			Regards,
    				Bill

    So when I next visit and catch flack, I just whip out the magic marker
    and install the 4.3 Gb "upgrade ECO"!  
    
    FWIW: Shipped to the customer site in March, but inventory collected
    from MFG in February for a CSS build and VIS pre-install.

    The same thing is happening with the RZ28Ds.  I have brand-new
    RZ28D-VWs that say 2.0GB and RZ28D-VAs that say 2.1GB.
    
    				-John

    re:.6
    
    John,
    
     This one makes even less sense....  Whereas with the RZ29B-VW we in
    engineering put the wrong size (4.0Gb) in the chart for size and then
    fixed it later, the RZ28D-VW HAS ALWAYS said 2.1GB for the size.  We
    added the chart specifying capacity in July 1995 - this is rev D of 
    7031468.  That chart states a capacity of 2.1GB.  It has never changed.
    
     Now the RZ28C-VW's are 2.0GB, but they are different drives.  
    
     Time to for me to leave voice mail with the QE in NIO....
    
    				Bill

To what bill said.

The labels are wrong. The drives are the EXACT same size. 

roger.

    Here's a second-hand update from the mfg side....  
    
    I just spoke with the Quality Engineer in NIO.  This is the whole
    story (I think).  
    
    The labels for the RZ28D-VW and RZ29B-VW were programmed incorrectly 
    by CXO mfg back in 1995.  When the product transferred to NIO, the
    incorrect labeling followed.  [From the Design side, it looks as if we 
    always had the RZ28D-VW correct, but had the RZ29B-VW wrong until late 
    1995.]  
    
    In Jan/Feb 1997 NIO noted the mistake on the RZ28D-VW and corrected it.
    In Mar 1997, NIO corrected the RZ29B-VW.  
    
    So all new drives shipping from NIO should be labeled correctly.
    
    AYO SBB's have been correct (that's how NIO found the error - they had
    an NIO built SBB next to an AYO SBB and noticed the difference.)
    
    RZ29B-VA's seem to have been correct since the beginning.  I haven't
    seen any RZ28D-VA to confirm one way or the other.
    
    So that seems to be the story.  
    
    				Bill