Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8598)	1/8/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Bonzo	Respond to of 31646

>>Mike Winn on Jan 8 1998 1:57AM EST Now with ATE, you don't have to understand what's the function of the circuit board. You can even write a test without schematics, not a very good test though. What you do in an ATE test is you program a machine such as Genrad or Teradyne to drive a bed of nails to control the inputs and read the outputs of gates on the circuit board. If you don't have the circuit diagram then you can't check the trace but you can check the chips on the board. It's much simpler than the software in an embedded system<< Mike we are talking "functional" test programming not "in-Circuit" using a "bed-of-nails" interface. Or "PseudoRandom"(without schematics?). Partitioning logic and developing test modules using a tester interface that you design with signal conditioning circuitry (if required), a Test Rom for MPU handshaking and diagnostics etc. Not quite as "simple" as In-Circuit-Testing "backdriving" internal nodes with "thruth-table" component testing. Although the test methodology was normally more "structured" than functional (don't necessarily care how it works in the system), sufficient documentation was required. And therin lies the problem. I gave you a "real world" example of how some of the worlds largest factory sites do not, or can not, support y2k embedded problems in-house. They "board swap" when a machine goes down and use automated testing to repair that bad board or send it to the OEM as I described (overseas). They are not technically prepared to even assess a y2k embedded system problem. There are many systems containing obsolete parts that no longer can be replaced without major re-design to the system, no longer supported by the vendor/oem, or may not have sufficent documentation to remediate the problem. TPRO will primarily benefit from the Multi-plant assessment work they are pursuing, the CD sales (database access & compliance reports) from thier licensed partners including Commercial Insurance companies who will require complete y2k compliance and certification (IT/Embedded) before issuing commerical insurance, and to a lesser degree (imo), equipment replacement and remediation. Nonetheless, I respect your decision, or anyone elses for not buying tpro. It does not fit everyones investment strategy or risk tolerance. You have said your piece, have proven that you are highly technical so it has weight (wonder how many you scared off on this thread?), but Mike you can't bluff me, I know better. I have been in the trenches since 1972 (been mostly marketing last 5 though). You either believe there is money and opportunity for TPRO or you don't. If you don't good luck with your other investments and perhaps I'll see you on another board. Wave Goodbye to everyone now :-)