Warranty Extenion value revisited
John Navas
cost effective on ThinkPads, particularly because good used machines are
relatively inexpensive, but I've now modified that opinion somewhat.
My primary computer of late has been a T41, on which the warranty
expired a few weeks ago. I probably wouldn't have noticed, but I got a
heads up from Lenovo during a regular system update, and decided to take
another look at the issue.
A quick check of eBay gave me a benchmark replacement price of about
$500. (I wasn't too fussy on specs because I could cannibalize my
existing machine if it failed.) Offset against that was whatever
I could get for a broken machine, which I estimated at about $150, for a
net cost of $350.
I then applied game theory to estimate the expected cost of the machine
failing in the next year. I would normally use a fallout rate of 20%
per year, but I've seen enough reports of T41 problems that I decided to
go with 40% instead, which put the expected cost of failure at $140.
The price of a 1-year extension was $169, or about $30 higher than the
raw expected cost of failure, but I figured that a good bit of that
difference would be offset by less hassle on my part, and the value of
having the machine completely checked out and brought up to snuff. So
on that basis I decided to go ahead and purchase a 1-year warranty
extension for $169.
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, for the rest of the story...
Very soon after purchasing the extended warranty the display quivered,
and the machine then locked up with a black screen. I restarted the
machine and all seemed well for awhile, but then it happened again.
I soon discovered that flexing the lower case (even just typing) would
cause the problem. Then I started getting crashes with the display
streaked with bands of color. The situation rapidly deteriorated, and
finally it became almost impossible to start the machine, with one long
and two short beeps from the BIOS at power on. I attempted some simple
repairs myself, but without success.
It was as if the gods were waiting for me to protect myself. I silently
thanked them for pushing me to get the warranty extension, and called
IBM/Lenono. The bad news is that I ran into the policy of not
activating the warranty extension of up to 14 days, with a not-so-subtle
threat to charge me time and materials if they (in their sole wisdom)
decided the failure had occurred between my warranty coverages.
(While I can understand the desire to make sure people don't only buy a
warranty extension except when a machine has actually failed, that
policy isn't stated clearly, and unfairly punishes those, like me, that
happen to have a failure shortly after buying the warranty extension.
But in fairness to Lenovo, it does allow you to buy a warranty extension
after the original warranty has expired, whereas some other vendors will
only allow an extension while you are still under warranty.)
The good news is that, despite what I was told initially, a customer
service rep in Atlanta named Barry took ownership of my problem, and
pushed through accelerated "entitlement" of my warranty extension the
same day, getting the prepaid express return box to me a day later. He
deserves a great deal of credit for restoring my faith in Lenovo. My
T41 isn't repaired and back to me yet, so I'm not certain how this will
all turn out, but I am cautiously optimistic.
Thus my opinion now on warranty extension is that it _can_ be justified,
albeit with the caveat that the justification is based in part on a poor
failure rate assumption (as compared to [say] the ThinkPad 600), and in
part on the value of having Lenovo (actually Selectron in Memphis, TN)
fix the machine, instead of having to do that or replace it myself.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgroup.com/>
noname
> Thus my opinion now on warranty extension is that it _can_ be justified,
> albeit with the caveat that the justification is based in part on a poor
> failure rate assumption (as compared to [say] the ThinkPad 600), and in
> part on the value of having Lenovo (actually Selectron in Memphis, TN)
> fix the machine, instead of having to do that or replace it myself.
>
You forgot to mention poor consumer protection. In Europe sellers are by
law responsible for covering any malfunction during the expected
lifetime of a product.
S.
John Navas
<4605a280$0$326$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
Perhaps that's part of why products are so much more expensive in the EU
than they are in the USA, leading to many EU shoppers surfing the
Internet for better deals. Government meddling in the market tends to
be counterproductive.
Dougal
It would be if the statement "responsible for covering any malfunction
during the expected lifetime of a product" were correct. It's just
possible that it may apply in some parts of the EU but most certainly
not in all.
noname
> It would be if the statement "responsible for covering any malfunction
> during the expected lifetime of a product" were correct. It's just
> possible that it may apply in some parts of the EU but most certainly
> not in all.
Every European country commited to the EU s also bound by the European
consumer laws. Not all countries have yet changed local laws. But that
is no excuse if a customer claims his/her rights. Only almost all
consumers act like sheep. They rather pay to avoid the wolf then to seek
justice.
S.
Igor V. Rafienko
[ ... ]
> You forgot to mention poor consumer protection. In Europe sellers
> are by law responsible for covering any malfunction during the
> expected lifetime of a product.
Setting aside the issue of what exactly "expected lifetime of a
product" may be, onsite service is worth every penny. Especially if
the laptop is essential.
ivr
--
"...but it's HDTV -- it's got a better resolution than the real world."
-- Fry, "When aliens attack"
Ed
>
> The price of a 1-year extension was $169,
I wonder if the failure rate has shot up on Lenovo products of late?
15 - 10 months ago I could have purchased a TWO year Depot Level Warranty
extension on my R50e for about $130, then later as it got within 5 or 6
months of the end of the original warranty period the price of an extension
shot up dramatically.... to the present $169 for only ONE year..
Ed
John Navas
in <xjvlkhl...@nelja.ifi.uio.no>:
>> You forgot to mention poor consumer protection. In Europe sellers
>> are by law responsible for covering any malfunction during the
>> expected lifetime of a product.
>
>Setting aside the issue of what exactly "expected lifetime of a
>product" may be, onsite service is worth every penny. Especially if
>the laptop is essential.
To me a good backup is of much more value than onsite service. My old
600 got me back up and running in minutes, and left me comfortable with
the expected offsite repair turnaround time. Even the best onsite
service would have left me down for the day, and possibly longer
(depending on what needed to be repaired). So when I get a new machine,
my last machine gets retired to warm backup (not disposed of). And my
old 600 goes on and on as a last line of defense. :)
noname
> Perhaps that's part of why products are so much more expensive in the EU
> than they are in the USA, leading to many EU shoppers surfing the
> Internet for better deals. Government meddling in the market tends to
> be counterproductive.
>
Besides that Europe has a complete different economic system based on
quality not quantity (different taxes, different consumers). I don't
even think that is the major reason for higher prices compared to the
USA. Even in the EU consumer protection is 'just' starting. The
technology revolution started in Asia and the USA. In fact, since WWII
and also before, Europe finds itselve still rather following the USA and
Asia. The EU has no real say in consumer products. It is import import
and import. Counter productive? No it fits the needs. That is why
European consumers start buying online? Even that is not cheaper: the
shipping charges, delivery time, customs duty, trouble when anything
goes wrong. And what about customizing. Europe has many coutries and
like local settings. Just some like to use the USA localization. But
hey, where is Lenovo/IBM anyway in Europe. Most consumers dont even know
the brand anymore. If it is a computer that works it is fine most of the
time. Even if it is has a small brand or a no name label. IBM was not up
to that years ago.
S.
JHEM
>
> I wonder if the failure rate has shot up on Lenovo products of late?
> 15 - 10 months ago I could have purchased a TWO year Depot Level
> Warranty extension on my R50e for about $130, then later as it got
> within 5 or 6 months of the end of the original warranty period the
> price of an extension shot up dramatically.... to the present $169
> for only ONE year..
The $169 reflects the fact that John's T41 was _out_ of warranty, not any
reduction in quality. Probably the same case for your R50E?
Adding an additional year of depot level warranty coverage for most
Thinkpads still under warranty costs $119, two years costs $220. Cheap
insurance IMHO.
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-WSU
--
James
Visit the Thinkpad Forums
http://forum.thinkpads.com
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
<m_CNh.3270$xE.455@trnddc08>:
That applies only to "machines sold on or after 1 May 2005" -- in other
words, a matter of age, not being in or out of warranty.
Regardless, even the $220 is still far more than $130.
Whether it's "cheap insurance" or not isn't the issue or the point, that
the price has been rising rapidly, which might reflect a higher field
failure rate than prior machines and forecasts.
JHEM
>
> That applies only to "machines sold on or after 1 May 2005" -- in
> other words, a matter of age, not being in or out of warranty.
The rates quoted and the URL I posted are for machines _still_ under
warranty. The date has to do with whether a machine was sold by IBM or
Lenovo and reflects the actual transfer date of the Thinkpad (and PC) line
to Lenovo.
Here's the URL for out of warranty upgrades:
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-PWMA
A quick phone call to 866-96-THINK will enable anyone to obtain a warranty
extension for a machine sold prior to 1 May 2005 that is still under
warranty.
> Regardless, even the $220 is still far more than $130.
I've never seen nor heard of that "2 additional years of warranty for $130"
offer.
> Whether it's "cheap insurance" or not isn't the issue or the point,
> that the price has been rising rapidly, which might reflect a higher
> field failure rate than prior machines and forecasts.
I've got copies of the Servicepac sales sheets going back to FEB 2001 which
state that the one year and two year warranty extensions were $99 and $198
respectively. Any current increase in pricing woud be more an indication of
inflation than any decrease in product quality IMHO.
Ed
>
> I've never seen nor heard of that "2 additional years of warranty for
> $130" offer.
>
That was an approximation... I purchased my new R50e in December, 2005.
During the first six months or so, a 2 year extended depot warranty was
frequently offered to me for about $132.00 I believe. The figure went up
to about $142.00 after that, and then again, near the end of the one
year warranty expiration, it jumped to bout $169.00 for Two years. It was
after the warranty expired that the relatively inexpensive two year
warranty extension ceased to be offered.
Ed in Oregon
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
<MNQNh.3725$xE.453@trnddc08>:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> That applies only to "machines sold on or after 1 May 2005" -- in
>> other words, a matter of age, not being in or out of warranty.
>
>The rates quoted and the URL I posted are for machines _still_ under
>warranty. The date has to do with whether a machine was sold by IBM or
>Lenovo and reflects the actual transfer date of the Thinkpad (and PC) line
>to Lenovo.
The simple fact is that there's nothing for the T41.
>Here's the URL for out of warranty upgrades:
>
>http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-PWMA
Again, nothing for the T41.
>I've got copies of the Servicepac sales sheets going back to FEB 2001 which
>state that the one year and two year warranty extensions were $99 and $198
>respectively. Any current increase in pricing woud be more an indication of
>inflation than any decrease in product quality IMHO.
I disagree.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<cpua03phosfviukc3...@4ax.com>:
>[BIG SNIP]
Spoke too soon.
Got a call a couple of hours ago from a rude and unhelpful woman who
informed me that my machine was out of warranty, that it needed a new
system board,* and that I would be charged time and materials for any
such repair. I offered proof of my extended warranty, but she wasn't
interested. When I then asked to be transferred to her manager, she
summarily dumped me into a voice mail system.
It took the better part of an hour for me to call around and find out
that what had actually happened was that the repair depot had decided my
machine failure was due to moisture damage and thus wasn't covered by
the extended warranty, and had referred my case to the Billing
Department, where it had been placed on billing hold until the rude and
unhelpful woman got around to dunning me. It the process two days had
been lost -- the machine had entered repair early yesterday morning, and
it's now after the close of business today, so nothing can be done until
tomorrow, on top of all the time I lost last week.
Customer Service is looking into the matter to see if there's anything
they can do, but I'm not optimistic. I bought this machine used, so
it's possible there could be some signs of moisture from the prior
owner, but I know there's been no moisture issue in the 9 months I've
owned it. I also know from professional experience that my failure
symptoms aren't indicative of moisture damage -- my machine crashing
from chassis flexing points to the known graphics chip issue.** It
frankly looks to me like Lenovo is doing what it can to avoid honoring
the extended warranty.
Thus it seems I've invested a good deal of critical time and money to no
apparent avail, and may now have to struggle even more with getting the
mess unwound (machine back to me and extended warranty charges reversed)
before I can even attempt repair or replacement myself, although first
I'm going to take a last shot at getting it repaired under warranty.
I nonetheless fear that I may have to soon cut my losses by scrapping
and replacing the machine, which is probably what I should have done in
the first place.
It seems I was right before, that extended warranty coverage doesn't
make good sense (except to Lenovo).
* P/N 93P3307 ($370 at ACS Outlet)
** <http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?p=236813>, in particular
<http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?p=236813#236813>.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<1c2j03hkfcbhsqn2p...@4ax.com>:
>[BIG SNIP]
When I advised the Billing Department that I disputed the assessment of
billable instead than warranty repair, I was advised that it would take
up to three days to process my dispute.
Meanwhile my machine will be held hostage in an unrepaired state, and
while I have a backup of much of the hard disk, the machine failure made
it impossible for me to get all of the latest data, so I'm having to
make do without it.
This has been much worse than my past warranty experience with IBM, and
will inevitably make it hard for me to recommend Lenovo in the future.
Larry
-Larry
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:1c2j03hkfcbhsqn2p...@4ax.com...
John Navas
others. It's a great business opportunity -- revenue without expense.
So profits are finally up:
World No.3 PC maker Lenovo Q3 profit rises 23 pct
<http://i.today.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=companyNews&storyid=100466+01-Feb-2007+RTRS&WTmodLoc=BizArt-L1-CompanyNews-4>
but at a price:
Lenovo’s American sales keep falling
<http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2007/02/lenovos_america.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting>
Lenovo Turnaround Not Complete
<http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/02/02/lenovo-group-china-markets-equity-cx_jc_0202markets19.html>
The word "shortsighted" comes to mind. As my own case drags on, it will
inevitably become harder and harder for me to specify Lenovo hardware in
the future. It seems the days of stellar service and support are over.
Yesterday I faxed a letter to Lenovo CEO Bill Amelio, and filed a
warranty complaint with the Better Business Bureau. Today I filed a
warranty complaint with the FTC, and will be talking to my local
District Attorney.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:24:41 -0400, "Larry" <no...@none.com> wrote in
<SUuOh.637$EJ6...@newsfe24.lga>:
>Lenovo has gotten real good at finding "Moisture Damage".
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
--
Ed
While I sympathize with your problems with Lenovo, I must say that in
all fairness to the service technicians, if there is any signs of moisture
damage, it can make it very difficult to determine that the problem you
cited actually stem from other issues, such as the flex cracking you
mentioned.
I've serviced electronic equipment for over 30 years and when signs of
moisture damage are apparent, the first thought, and usually the correct
assessment, is that the unit may not be repairable without complete board
replacement. I have no idea the extent of damage in your unit, but when
you get it back, if unrepaired, you might as well inspect again to see
what you think. Some moisture damage IS economically repairable... some
is not.
Ed
Larry
TINY little stain about 1/4" in diameter, not really on anything important.
What can you do. Their dojo.
-Larry
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:mi1l035rhdeg04anr...@4ax.com...
John Navas
<BOyOh.30323$s8.1...@newsfe21.lga>:
>They sent us a photo of one they claimed "moisture damage" on. It was a
>TINY little stain about 1/4" in diameter, not really on anything important.
Yep. That's pretty much what pictures of my machine showed.
>What can you do. Their dojo.
Not entirely. My warranty gives me legal rights. What I can do (and
have done):
1. Filed warranty complaints.
2. Meet today with my local District Attorney.
3. File in Small Claims Court.
It will be interesting to see what condition the machine is in when
I get it back. It was operable when I sent it in by at least flexing
the chassis. If it's now completely inoperable, I will hold Lenovo
responsible for the entire value of the machine (in addition to the
costs I've incurred while this matter dragged on and played itself out).
-John
John Navas
wrote in <Xns99016C025A515sp...@64.209.0.81>:
There is no sign of actual moisture damage, or any symptoms pointing to
actual moisture damage -- there are only some small visible stains that
_might_ be moisture (water) related. On the other hand, they might be
solvent related, and thus completely benign.
In denying warranty coverage to which I'm legally entitled, the burden
of proof is on Lenovo, and the pictures I was sent don't meet that
burden. What Lenovo should have done was _test_ for the chip attachment
problem, which is easy to do, but that was apparently _not_ done.
Lastly, the system board would be replaced in the case of the known chip
attachment issue, so it's the same repair either way.
noname
> While I sympathize with your problems with Lenovo, I must say that in
> all fairness to the service technicians, if there is any signs of moisture
> damage, it can make it very difficult to determine that the problem you
> cited actually stem from other issues, such as the flex cracking you
> mentioned.
One moment. What I experienced during a warranty request was much like
this. I gave a very good description of the sympthoms and state under
which the problems occured. IBM says, that is acceptable for repair or
replacement under warranty. Next thing I now I got a message from IBM
telling me I have to pay around for the repairs with nothing more then
"customer damage". After a few messages it turns out the service
technicians did not bother to look at the description. They just noted a
damaged cover and reported to IBM account management "customer damage".
At IBM they copied that information and translated I should pay.
> I've serviced electronic equipment for over 30 years and when signs of
> moisture damage are apparent, the first thought, and usually the correct
> assessment, is that the unit may not be repairable without complete board
> replacement. I have no idea the extent of damage in your unit, but when
> you get it back, if unrepaired, you might as well inspect again to see
> what you think. Some moisture damage IS economically repairable... some
> is not.
Im glad I live in Europe. When a product is under warranty it is up to
the seller to provide absolute prove there is customer damage. Just
assuming there is customer damage or damage as a result of customer
damage is not enough. The two pictures they send as prove where
absolutely worthless as prove. Fortunately the people at IBM realized
this when I confronted them with the letter I included with the shipment
of the Thinkpad.
S.
John Navas
wrote in <Xns99016C025A515sp...@64.209.0.81>:
> While I sympathize with your problems with Lenovo, I must say that in
Here's some of the "proof" of out-of-warranty "moisture damage":
<http://i12.tinypic.com/2i0viic.jpg>. Judge for yourself.
John Navas
<460af1d3$0$330$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>Ed wrote:
>> While I sympathize with your problems with Lenovo, I must say that in
>> all fairness to the service technicians, if there is any signs of moisture
>> damage, it can make it very difficult to determine that the problem you
>> cited actually stem from other issues, such as the flex cracking you
>> mentioned.
>
>One moment. What I experienced during a warranty request was much like
>this. I gave a very good description of the sympthoms and state under
>which the problems occured. IBM says, that is acceptable for repair or
>replacement under warranty. Next thing I now I got a message from IBM
>telling me I have to pay around for the repairs with nothing more then
>"customer damage". After a few messages it turns out the service
>technicians did not bother to look at the description. They just noted a
>damaged cover and reported to IBM account management "customer damage".
>At IBM they copied that information and translated I should pay.
Yep. In my case it was quite clear that my documented symptoms were
simply ignored, and that no actual testing for the known chip attachment
problem was actually done.
Jerry
John,
You certainly are full of yourself aren't you?
Clearly, damage caused by the customer is not covered by warranty. It
seems perfectly reasonable to me that your defective computer be
inspected before diagnosis and repairs are performed. If damage is
observed - water damage in this case - then warranty is denied.
Understandably you may not like that but the customer service person
you spoke to whether rude or nice is not going to have the authority to
change that conclusion.
You backed yourself into this corner by announcing to the world that
you found a way to beat the system. That's what motivated you to start
this thread. Extended warranties are bad period and game theory is not
going to change that.
You remind me of a kid who got his feeling hurt and picks up his
marbles so that no one else can play.
--jerry
Ed
>
> Here's some of the "proof" of out-of-warranty "moisture damage":
> <http://i12.tinypic.com/2i0viic.jpg>. Judge for yourself.
>
Nice Picture! Although I'd like to see that board area up closer and
live, the picture pretty well tells it all. The "moisture damage" area,
in my experience, is very minimal.... no actual damage I can see, no
noticable corrosion on the pads, just minimal board staining, and very
localized. I suppose Lenovo could argue that the integrity of the multi-
layer board is in question due to this, and it could be hard to argue since
those layers are not visible, but now that I've seen the pix I think Lenovo
is trying to shaft you.
Ed
Jerry
news:Xns9901C06327845sp...@64.209.0.81:
Here is an experiment you can all try. Drop your laptop in a bathtub
filled with water and then retrieve it. Repeat until the laptop no
longer functions. Then open your unit and inspect for water damage.
Can't find any? What does that say about a unit that does show water
damage however small? Lenovo is trying to shaft you?
--jerry
JHEM
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:30:04 GMT, "JHEM"
> <Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
> <MNQNh.3725$xE.453@trnddc08>:
>
Nonsense, look it up by model number (2373).
>> I've got copies of the Servicepac sales sheets going back to FEB
>> 2001 which state that the one year and two year warranty extensions
>> were $99 and $198 respectively. Any current increase in pricing woud
>> be more an indication of inflation than any decrease in product
>> quality IMHO.
>
> I disagree.
Why am I not surprised.
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
<VEGOh.23955$FD1.10418@trnddc05>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:30:04 GMT, "JHEM"
>> <Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
>> <MNQNh.3725$xE.453@trnddc08>:
>>
>> The simple fact is that there's nothing for the T41.
>
>Nonsense, look it up by model number (2373).
2373 isn't unique to the T41.
>>> I've got copies of the Servicepac sales sheets going back to FEB
>>> 2001 which state that the one year and two year warranty extensions
>>> were $99 and $198 respectively. Any current increase in pricing woud
>>> be more an indication of inflation than any decrease in product
>>> quality IMHO.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>Why am I not surprised.
Perhaps because you ignore the fact that hardware costs have _fallen_
(not risen).
John Navas
wrote in <Xns9901C06327845sp...@64.209.0.81>:
To be clear, the picture was taken by Lenovo (actually Selectron), and
sent to me as "proof".
John Navas
in <Xns9901B1337...@216.168.3.50>:
>You certainly are full of yourself aren't you?
I'm afraid you've got that backwards.
>Clearly, damage caused by the customer is not covered by warranty. It
>seems perfectly reasonable to me that your defective computer be
>inspected before diagnosis and repairs are performed.
Of course.
>If damage is
>observed - water damage in this case - then warranty is denied.
There is no real evidence of any such damage. The actual symptoms
clearly point to the known component attachment issue.
>Understandably you may not like that but the customer service person
>you spoke to whether rude or nice is not going to have the authority to
>change that conclusion.
Lenovo doesn't have the legal right to make such a determination
unilaterally.
>You backed yourself into this corner by announcing to the world that
>you found a way to beat the system.
I did no such thing.
>That's what motivated you to start
>this thread. Extended warranties are bad period and game theory is not
>going to change that.
>
>You remind me of a kid who got his feeling hurt and picks up his
>marbles so that no one else can play.
You remind me of a childish jerk.
JHEM
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:47:01 GMT, "JHEM"
> <Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
> <VEGOh.23955$FD1.10418@trnddc05>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:30:04 GMT, "JHEM"
>>> <Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
>>> <MNQNh.3725$xE.453@trnddc08>:
>>>
>>> The simple fact is that there's nothing for the T41.
>>
>> Nonsense, look it up by model number (2373).
>
> 2373 isn't unique to the T41.
Yes, but if you search for 2373 on the URL listed, you'll see it
_specifically_ lists the T41 as one of the models supported.
So much for your "simple fact".
Larry
What kind of machine was yours?
I've had a TON of T40's (and a few T42's) that I've had to EZServe out due
to the flexing/movment lockup issue.
I think in some cases it was actually a connectivity issue between the
system board and the planar card.
Just something to keep in mind if you end up stuck with it as is.
FWIW, I immediately noted the increased warranty declines when Lenovo took
over from IBM. When IBM was servicing, I almost never saw a "Customer
Abuse" claim from them, short of the obvious orange juice (worst possible
case) or Coke spills.
-Larry
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:b9fl039sl77hb5pda...@4ax.com...
Larry
-Larry
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8fsl039r772b4l081...@4ax.com...
Larry
looking at this the right way.
If you took your car (oh hell, here comes the car analogy LOL) with a blown
engine, under warranty, and they said they would not cover it because your
windshield was cracked, then you'd be pissed too.
That's kinda what's going on here if I read things right.
-Larry
"Jerry" <jerr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9901B1337...@216.168.3.50...
noname
> FWIW, I immediately noted the increased warranty declines when Lenovo
> took over from IBM. When IBM was servicing, I almost never saw a
> "Customer Abuse" claim from them, short of the obvious orange juice
> (worst possible case) or Coke spills.
>
From what I understand it is a pure problem due to change in the
companies they hire to perform the actual repair and the way those
companies work.
I was told by an IBM support member that IBM/Lenovo EMEA in December
changed at least in one case back to a trusted repair company in Germany
because the new company in England did not only blamed customers
unfairly but also did not even repair.
These companies can be very different in the way they provide service.
To deliver they should follow a good quality check proces. But it
depends on the company culture if there is any or if this is followed
well by the teams.
S.
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
<MlROh.112053$fo5.108744@trnddc07>:
That web page you posted
<http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-WSU>
has no warranty upgrade listed for the T41 (2373):
<http://i14.tinypic.com/2rh5xg9.png>
And there is no other listing of the 2373 on that page.
Are you really confused, or just being obtuse & argumentative? ;)
John Navas
<hqROh.56973$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga>:
>John,
>
>What kind of machine was yours?
T41 (2373-1FU)
>I've had a TON of T40's (and a few T42's) that I've had to EZServe out due
>to the flexing/movment lockup issue.
>
>I think in some cases it was actually a connectivity issue between the
>system board and the planar card.
>
>Just something to keep in mind if you end up stuck with it as is.
Thanks. My case is now in the hands of Lenovo Executive Relations (with
the machine still on hold). Time will tell if that makes a difference.
Otherwise I'll take a crack it fixing it myself when I finally get it
back.
>FWIW, I immediately noted the increased warranty declines when Lenovo took
>over from IBM. When IBM was servicing, I almost never saw a "Customer
>Abuse" claim from them, short of the obvious orange juice (worst possible
>case) or Coke spills.
Thanks. That's what I'm hearing from others as well.
John Navas
<460bf708$0$331$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>Larry wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I immediately noted the increased warranty declines when Lenovo
>> took over from IBM. When IBM was servicing, I almost never saw a
>> "Customer Abuse" claim from them, short of the obvious orange juice
>> (worst possible case) or Coke spills.
In the case of my T30 with the infamous SIM socket problem, a new system
board was promptly shipped without requiring any prior inspection.
I likewise got a replacement hard disk for a 600 way back when on just
the strength of it failing Drive Fitness Test. In neither of these
cases was I even expected to return the defective parts.
>From what I understand it is a pure problem due to change in the
>companies they hire to perform the actual repair and the way those
>companies work.
>
>I was told by an IBM support member that IBM/Lenovo EMEA in December
>changed at least in one case back to a trusted repair company in Germany
>because the new company in England did not only blamed customers
>unfairly but also did not even repair.
>
>These companies can be very different in the way they provide service.
>To deliver they should follow a good quality check proces. But it
>depends on the company culture if there is any or if this is followed
>well by the teams.
Your point is well taken, but in this case the repair agent is
Selectron, which I think was doing these repairs for IBM before the
takeover by Lenovo, so my guess(tm) is that this has more to do with
Lenovo management than the repair agent.
John Navas
<wuROh.56975$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga>:
>"Jerry" <jerr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9901B1337...@216.168.3.50...
>Look, I certainly don't agree with all of John's posts here, but you are not
>looking at this the right way.
>
>If you took your car (oh hell, here comes the car analogy LOL) with a blown
>engine, under warranty, and they said they would not cover it because your
>windshield was cracked, then you'd be pissed too.
>
>That's kinda what's going on here if I read things right.
Yep. My symptoms clearly point to the known chip attachment issue
(usually the ATI graphics chip), which is easy to check/test, but that
apparently wasn't even done.
Perhaps Jerry was put off by my use of the term "game theory", thinking
my meaning was "gaming" the system (like Enron), when it fact it's just
the science of estimating the value/cost of an uncertain future event.
The term "game theory" has its origins in the expected payoffs of
various gambling games. For example, if you have a 1 in 1,000,000
chance of winning a $30,000 car in a lottery, then the expected value of
a given lottery ticket is 3 cents. But it's also applicable to
probabilistic non-gambling future events
You can estimate the value of an extended warranty by multiplying the
likely cost of repair by the estimated odds of failure during the
extended warranty period (as I did). If the cost of the extended
warranty is much less than that amount, then it's a good bet; if it's
much more, then it's a bad bet, unless you attribute sufficient extra
value to piece of mind, or the cost would otherwise be unaffordable (as
in the case of catastrophic illness).
JHEM
>
> That web page you posted
> <http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-WSU>
> has no warranty upgrade listed for the T41 (2373):
> <http://i14.tinypic.com/2rh5xg9.png>
> And there is no other listing of the 2373 on that page.
Each of the individual subgroups listed on the page are arranged based on
the original warranty period. Going to the grouping for the "3 year parts
and labor depot repair" that contains the T41 model number (2373) you can
see that the beginning of that particular subgroup lists all of the upgrades
available for that group, to wit (emphasis added, _I_ _hope_):
ThinkPad R60e 0659 All Models _2 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day
$98_
ThinkPad X60 1702 All Models _3 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day
$119_
ThinkPad X60 1704 All Models _4 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day
$299_
ThinkPad X60 1706 All Models _4 Year Parts and Labor Depot Repair $110_
ThinkPad X60 1708 All Models _5 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day
$449_
ThinkPad R50 1830 All Models _5 Year Parts and Labor Depot Repair $220_
The table then goes on to list all of the machines _within that specific
category_ eligible for the above upgrades at the prices listed, to wit:
ThinkPad R52 1847 All Models
ThinkPad R52 1860 All Models
ThinkPad T43 1871 All Models
ThinkPad T43 1876 All Models
ThinkPad T60 1951 All Models
ThinkPad R52 1958 All Models
ThinkPad T60 2007 All Models
ThinkPad T30 2366 All Models
ThinkPad X40 2371 All Models
ThinkPad T40, _T41_ _2373_ _All_ _Models_
ThinkPad T40 2379 All Models
ThinkPad X40 2382 All Models
Etc., etc.
Confusing? Sure, but a few moments studying the table should allow anyone to
grok the contents and meaning.
> Are you really confused, or just being obtuse & argumentative? ;)
All of the above John, you bring out the best in me.
Ed
>
> Here is an experiment you can all try. Drop your laptop in a bathtub
> filled with water and then retrieve it. Repeat until the laptop no
> longer functions. Then open your unit and inspect for water damage.
> Can't find any? What does that say about a unit that does show water
> damage however small? Lenovo is trying to shaft you?
>
Jerry,
You have a problem. You either don't grasp the situation, or you're
just responding to tweak John. I've had decades of experience dealing
with and repairing items similar to what John is talking about. The
pictures from Lenovo were quite clear. Any technician with real
experience would know that the tiny amount of visible residue did not
indicate any likely serious water damage, if any at all.
For your own information, drop your laptop in the bathtub, run it
for a few weeks or more, and THEN look inside and see what you see.
Ed
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
<n9WOh.68817$vI1.54095@trnddc02>:
Nope. The horizontal line below ThinkPad R50 (1830) and above ThinkPad
R52 (1847) separate all of those machines from any listed upgrade.
Hint: Note the difference between the block starting with ThinkPad X60s
(1703), which does have an offering for a list of machines, to the block
with the ThinkPad T41 (2373), for which there is _no_ offering.
As I wrote, there is _no_ upgrade listed for the T41.
If you disagree, list the Lenovo Offering #, Lenovo Part #, and List
Price you think apply.
>> Are you really confused, or just being obtuse & argumentative? ;)
>
>All of the above John, you bring out the best in me.
You're actually just making yourself look pretty silly.
JHEM
> Nope. The horizontal line below ThinkPad R50 (1830) and above
> ThinkPad R52 (1847) separate all of those machines from any listed
> upgrade.
Possibly an artifact generated by Firefox? View the page in _IE_ and there's
no such separation other than a _single_ table line. The double line between
the preceding "3 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day" coverage machines
and the subject "3 Year Parts and Labor Depot Repair" subgroup serves to
separate the two. Same for the double line that follows the subject
subgroup.
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-WSU
> Hint: Note the difference between the block starting with ThinkPad
> X60s (1703), which does have an offering for a list of machines, to
> the block with the ThinkPad T41 (2373), for which there is _no_
> offering.
>
> As I wrote, there is _no_ upgrade listed for the T41.
You're absolutely correct about there being a difference between the two
tables, someone at Lenovo was lazy when formatting the subject one and
assumed that people could readily decipher their "shorthand", but that
doesn't mean there's no warranty upgrade available for the listed machines,
a matter readily resolved with a telephone call to Lenovo.
> If you disagree, list the Lenovo Offering #, Lenovo Part #, and List
> Price you think apply.
Sure, sorry for the layout due to the limitations of plain text:
Service Description, Lenovo Offering #, Lenovo Part #, List Price
2 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day, LPL512, 41C9175, $98
3 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day, LPL510, 41C9176, $119
4 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day, LPL503, 41C9177, $299
4 Year Parts and Labor Depot Repair, LPL502, 41C9178, $110
5 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day, LPL501, 41C9179, $449
5 Year Parts and Labor Depot Repair, LPL507, 41C9180, $220
I've purchased the last of these offerings for both my 2373-GGU and 2373-GEU
T41P machines at the listed price ($220). I've also purchased additional
warranties for several clients' 2373 model T40 and T41 machines without any
difficulties.
> You're actually just making yourself look pretty silly.
I won't dignify that with a response.
Larry
Someone needs to explain to me why Lenovo charges almost TWICE as much for a
non-covered repair (i.e. cracked screen - user damage) when a machine is
still in warranty, vs. a machine that is out of warranty.
For example. Cracked Screen...
OUT OF WARRANTY - Tier 3, approximately $425.
IN WARRANTY - Tier 7, approximately $700.
Same computer. Same damage. Only difference is mfr's warranty status.
-Larry
"JHEM" <Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in message
news:n9WOh.68817$vI1.54095@trnddc02...
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in
<nH7Ph.6209$8l2.4941@trnddc01>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Nope. The horizontal line below ThinkPad R50 (1830) and above
>> ThinkPad R52 (1847) separate all of those machines from any listed
>> upgrade.
>
>Possibly an artifact generated by Firefox?
Nope.
>View the page in _IE_
Looks just like Firefox.
>and there's
>no such separation other than a _single_ table line. The double line between
>the preceding "3 Year Onsite Repair 9x5 Next Business Day" coverage machines
>and the subject "3 Year Parts and Labor Depot Repair" subgroup serves to
>separate the two. Same for the double line that follows the subject
>subgroup.
>
>http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-WSU
You're still confused. Read what I wrote more carefully. The blank
space to the right of the T41 <http://i7.tinypic.com/2h4jabp.png> means
_no_ upgrade. Where there is an upgrade, it appears in the space, as in
the case of the block starting with ThinkPad X60s. If line for ThinkPad
R50 (1830) was intended to apply to the T41, then there would have been
no single line below Service Description, Lenovo Offering #, Lenovo Part
#, and List Price.
>> Hint: Note the difference between the block starting with ThinkPad
>> X60s (1703), which does have an offering for a list of machines, to
>> the block with the ThinkPad T41 (2373), for which there is _no_
>> offering.
>>
>> As I wrote, there is _no_ upgrade listed for the T41.
>
>You're absolutely correct about there being a difference between the two
>tables, someone at Lenovo was lazy when formatting the subject one and
>assumed that people could readily decipher their "shorthand", but that
>doesn't mean there's no warranty upgrade available for the listed machines,
>a matter readily resolved with a telephone call to Lenovo.
So now it's a typo? :)
JHEM
> You're still confused.
And you're being closed-minded.
> Read what I wrote more carefully. The blank
> space to the right of the T41 <http://i7.tinypic.com/2h4jabp.png>
> means _no_ upgrade.
It means _no_ such thing.
I've tried to explain this as plainly as possible, I even typed it very
slowly so you wouldn't have any difficulty reading it.
Select the upgrade you want from the list of Lenovo part numbers I listed
earlier, call Lenovo, tell them you want that upgrade for your in-warranty
T41 and the answer will be "no problem".
I quit John, you're hopeless.
John Navas
<Ja...@ESAD.SPAMMERS.thinkpads.com> wrote in <_riPh.32$F%1.27@trnddc01>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> You're still confused.
>
>And you're being closed-minded.
No, I'm just sticking to the actual contention and objective fact.
>> Read what I wrote more carefully. The blank
>> space to the right of the T41 <http://i7.tinypic.com/2h4jabp.png>
>> means _no_ upgrade.
>
>It means _no_ such thing.
>
>I've tried to explain this as plainly as possible, I even typed it very
>slowly so you wouldn't have any difficulty reading it.
>
>Select the upgrade you want from the list of Lenovo part numbers I listed
>earlier, call Lenovo, tell them you want that upgrade for your in-warranty
>T41 and the answer will be "no problem".
>
>I quit John, you're hopeless.
You're a piece of work, James. And a rude one at that.
This all got started because I pointed out that there is no item for the
T41 in that table. You claimed there was, starting a long and pointless
argument, going so far as to blame Firefox for displaying the table
incorrectly. Now you're effectively admitting I was right and you were
wrong all along, switching to saying the table is inaccurate. It may
well be, but that's a different issue. Be a big boy, admit you were
wrong, and learn from this how counterproductive it is to be rude. In
return I'll apologize for my own discourtesy, and take your word for it
that the table is inaccurate. What do you say? Bury the hatchets? Are
you man enough?
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<vhvn03tog88ala3lp...@4ax.com>:
>Thanks. My case is now in the hands of Lenovo Executive Relations (with
>the machine still on hold). Time will tell if that makes a difference.
>Otherwise I'll take a crack it fixing it myself when I finally get it
>back.
UPDATE: Lenovo Executive Relations (which got involved as a result of
the letter I wrote CEO Bill Amelio) took over my warranty case, but not
before Customer Service had reassembled my machine and shipped it back
to me. So as soon as it arrived (last Fri), I had to slap on an emailed
shipping label, turn it around unopened, and send it to Executive
Relations. Only time will tell if it will do any good. It's now 11
days and counting since this saga started.
Ed
>
> UPDATE: Lenovo Executive Relations (which got involved as a result of
> the letter I wrote CEO Bill Amelio) took over my warranty case, but not
> before Customer Service had reassembled my machine and shipped it back
> to me. So as soon as it arrived (last Fri), I had to slap on an emailed
> shipping label, turn it around unopened, and send it to Executive
> Relations. Only time will tell if it will do any good. It's now 11
> days and counting since this saga started.
>
11 days.... not really bad at all considering the letter writing and
delivery times required for that.....
Keep us posted on this. May come in handy for some of the rest of us in
the future....
Ed in Oregon
John Navas
in <Xns9905662A585E5sp...@64.209.0.81>:
>> UPDATE: Lenovo Executive Relations (which got involved as a result of
>> the letter I wrote CEO Bill Amelio) took over my warranty case, but not
>> before Customer Service had reassembled my machine and shipped it back
>> to me. So as soon as it arrived (last Fri), I had to slap on an emailed
>> shipping label, turn it around unopened, and send it to Executive
>> Relations. Only time will tell if it will do any good. It's now 11
>> days and counting since this saga started.
>
> 11 days.... not really bad at all considering the letter writing and
>delivery times required for that.....
I personally think it's quite a bit of time:
My letter was by fax -- zero time.
Shipments are overnight -- 1 day each.
2 days were lost due to delay in contacting me.
2 more days were lost before/because of shipment back to me.
That said, the delay wouldn't really bother me except I don't have much
confidence it will get repaired this time either -- I fear I'll get it
back unrepaired after another week lost.
> Keep us posted on this. May come in handy for some of the rest of us in
>the future....
You bet.
Phil Sherman
> Here's some of the "proof" of out-of-warranty "moisture damage":
> <http://i12.tinypic.com/2i0viic.jpg>. Judge for yourself.
>
I looked at the photo and see obvious evidence of water exposure.
Exposure is not the same as damage. Exposure may, in time, turn into
damage or may cause immediate damage.
My (under warranty) T40's wireless card failed and I lost the argument
with the support rep about how to repair it. (I wanted to send it in; he
wanted me to replace it myself.) I couldn't convince him that the
wireless card in my particular unit was not a CRU (customer replaceable
unit) so he shipped the replacement to me and I did the repair. When I
made the "successful repair" call back to support, this rep stated that
my wireless card was no longer under warranty because only a certified
technician could replace that part.
(Replacing the Atheros card in my T40 requires a certified technician to
satisfy US FCC (Federal Communications Commission) requirements for
handling of an RF transmitter with adjustable output power. Other
wireless cards do not have this requirement. To prevent a customer from
replacing this part; IBM assembled the case with two special security
screws which require an almost unavailable tool. This "adjustable
transmitter power" is also the reason that many Linux operating systems
do not come with Atheros drivers. The FCC mandates that the driver
cannot be modified by an end user which requires that Atheros not
release the source code for it. This violates the GNU license for Linux
(source code must be available) and some vendors won't include the
software.)
Phil Sherman
Ed
> I looked at the photo and see obvious evidence of water exposure.
> Exposure is not the same as damage. Exposure may, in time, turn into
> damage or may cause immediate damage.
Better stated than what I said on this issue, but again, the visible
signs were minimal, in my experience.
> My (under warranty) T40's wireless card failed and I lost the argument
> with the support rep about how to repair it. (I wanted to send it in;
he
> wanted me to replace it myself.) I couldn't convince him that the
> wireless card in my particular unit was not a CRU (customer replaceable
> unit) so he shipped the replacement to me and I did the repair. When I
> made the "successful repair" call back to support, this rep stated that
> my wireless card was no longer under warranty because only a certified
> technician could replace that part.
Kinda makes makes one want to switch to Dell products.......
> (Replacing the Atheros card in my T40 requires a certified technician
to
> satisfy US FCC (Federal Communications Commission) requirements for
> handling of an RF transmitter with adjustable output power.
Not really. Not only has the FCC long ago abandoned the requirement
for FCC certification to make adjustments to ANY transmitter in this
country, but since the WiFi wireless spectrum isn't even licensed, per
se, it was never required. The FCC manufacturer requirement to keep
end-user hands out of equipment is another matter, aimed at preventing
tampering with anything that might effect the FCC equipment
certification.
> Other
> wireless cards do not have this requirement. To prevent a customer from
> replacing this part; IBM assembled the case with two special security
> screws which require an almost unavailable tool.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you can find this tool tip in a
kit of security tools available at most Home Depot type stores. I have.
> This "adjustable
> transmitter power" is also the reason that many Linux operating systems
> do not come with Atheros drivers. The FCC mandates that the driver
> cannot be modified by an end user which requires that Atheros not
> release the source code for it. This violates the GNU license for Linux
> (source code must be available) and some vendors won't include the
> software.)
Long Live HyperWRT, etc. still.... my next laptop probably won't
be a Lenovo....
Ed in Oregon
John Navas
<pshe...@ameritech.net> wrote in <ev1qcg$gkm$1...@aioe.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>> Here's some of the "proof" of out-of-warranty "moisture damage":
>> <http://i12.tinypic.com/2i0viic.jpg>. Judge for yourself.
>>
>I looked at the photo and see obvious evidence of water exposure.
You must have X-ray vision! :)
>Exposure is not the same as damage. Exposure may, in time, turn into
>damage or may cause immediate damage.
Moisture damage that's not immediate is rare.
>My (under warranty) T40's wireless card failed and I lost the argument
>with the support rep about how to repair it. (I wanted to send it in; he
>wanted me to replace it myself.) I couldn't convince him that the
>wireless card in my particular unit was not a CRU (customer replaceable
>unit) so he shipped the replacement to me and I did the repair. When I
>made the "successful repair" call back to support, this rep stated that
>my wireless card was no longer under warranty because only a certified
>technician could replace that part.
Nonsense -- what the rep may have said isn't binding, albeit one more
sign of unfortunate hassles with Lenovo service.
>(Replacing the Atheros card in my T40 requires a certified technician to
>satisfy US FCC (Federal Communications Commission) requirements for
>handling of an RF transmitter with adjustable output power. Other
>wireless cards do not have this requirement. To prevent a customer from
>replacing this part; IBM assembled the case with two special security
>screws which require an almost unavailable tool. This "adjustable
>transmitter power" is also the reason that many Linux operating systems
>do not come with Atheros drivers. The FCC mandates that the driver
>cannot be modified by an end user which requires that Atheros not
>release the source code for it. This violates the GNU license for Linux
>(source code must be available) and some vendors won't include the
>software.)
Really? Which regulation(s)? Specific citation(s) please.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<93p01355gkv1oenbu...@4ax.com>:
>> Keep us posted on this. May come in handy for some of the rest of us in
>>the future....
>
>You bet.
Just got an update on my broken T41 -- it's now waiting on repair parts
(including system board), so apparently it _will_ (eventually) be
repaired under warranty. Now 15 days and counting. (Thank goodness for
my trusty old 500!)
Phil Sherman
>
>> Other
>> wireless cards do not have this requirement. To prevent a customer from
>> replacing this part; IBM assembled the case with two special security
>> screws which require an almost unavailable tool.
>
> I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you can find this tool tip in a
> kit of security tools available at most Home Depot type stores. I have.
>
> Ed in Oregon
>
Nope - It's a #7 security torx driver. The smallest you'll usually find
is a #8. I did see one once; it was part of a $40 kit - which I was
unwilling to buy for a single driver. I've seen them available through
eBay, usually for $7-10 with anywhere from $7-12 for shipping fees.
Jensen tools, where I would have purchased this many years ago, is now a
subsidiary of another company and doesn't appear to be interested in the
"I need one of this tool and ship it first class for a couple of bucks"
customer.
Phil Sherman
Ed
> Nope - It's a #7 security torx driver. The smallest you'll usually
> find is a #8. I did see one once; it was part of a $40 kit - which I
> was unwilling to buy for a single driver. I've seen them available
> through eBay, usually for $7-10 with anywhere from $7-12 for shipping
> fees. Jensen tools, where I would have purchased this many years ago,
> is now a subsidiary of another company and doesn't appear to be
> interested in the "I need one of this tool and ship it first class for
> a couple of bucks" customer.
I just checked my kit, No. 8 is smallest. Hard to see anyone really
using anything smaller, but as you have said.....
Most companies won't sell much of anything in unit quantities anymore.
Surprised Jensen has changed. ... used to use them a lot.
I did do a Google on the No. 7 security Torx and did find some
sources, such as, http://www.wihatools.com/111TRser.htm .
Ed in Oregon
Where there's a will, there's a way...
Phil Sherman
Ed's post above has a clearer explanation - it's more to keep consumers
from tampering with certified equipment. The certification I was
alluding to was not an FCC certification, it was an (in this case) IBM
certification. (This is what IBM called technicians that have been
appropriately trained to repair Thinkpads.) The assumption is that a
manufacturer trained technician knows the rules about not modifying the
cards.
I've seen similar warnings on commercial 2-way handheld radios. The
consumer is prohibited from opening up the unit and making any
modifications. All you need to do is to live 25-100 meters away from a
yokel who purchased a 1000w transmit power 10 meter amateur radio
transceiver and modified it for 11 meter citizens band (CB) use to
understand why these regulations exist. The regulations are applied to
all equipment that transmits RF signals.
Phil Sherman
Phil Sherman
I just checked WiHa as you suggested - $5.00 minimum order ($3.10 [sale
price] for the driver) and $8.68 for shipping. Unless I can find some
other $2 tool there, it's just under $15 for two of them. I suppose I
could do this and sell the spare on eBay.
Phil Sherman
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<7o1a13t9ieo5nt7ue...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:11:41 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
><93p01355gkv1oenbu...@4ax.com>:
>
>>> Keep us posted on this. May come in handy for some of the rest of us in
>>>the future....
>>
>>You bet.
>
>Just got an update on my broken T41 -- it's now waiting on repair parts
>(including system board), so apparently it _will_ (eventually) be
>repaired under warranty. Now 15 days and counting. (Thank goodness for
>my trusty old 500!)
Just got my T41 back, repaired under warranty, apparently thanks to my
faxed letter to the CEO of Lenovo. New system board, new CPU, and new
base cover. I think that's probably overkill, but I'm just glad to get
it back, repaired under warranty.
Ed
> Just got my T41 back, repaired under warranty, apparently thanks to my
> faxed letter to the CEO of Lenovo. New system board, new CPU, and new
> base cover. I think that's probably overkill, but I'm just glad to
> get it back, repaired under warranty.
>
'Tis unfortunate, but true, that sometimes one has to raise the roof
before getting a response from customer support systems.... Lenovo isn't
the only problem one, either.
Glad it worked out, anyway.
Ed
news.east.cox.net
IBM.
-Larry
"Ed" <Huckleber...@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
news:Xns990EE2ADED1E8sp...@64.209.0.95...
The Last Westman
Lenovo on this forum. Owe T43 so far so good.
--
___________________
" don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls to You "
John Navas
free Hoover's online service. For Lenovo USA, that's
<http://www.hoovers.com/lenovo/--ID__56726--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml>.
No fax number is listed, so I got it by calling the main number.
(I usually call for the fax number outside of normal business hours
because I've found that ill-trained security guards are more likely to
give it out without discussion than experienced receptionists.)
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:37:32 GMT, The Last Westman <voi...@mts.net>
wrote in <0OaTh.58243$aG1.52386@pd7urf3no>:
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>