[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2c6hk1hvg3v3vbar1skqs4b5kbbp07rus2@4ax.com> on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:03:08
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>>Google suggests that there are at least 5 versions of this card:
>> PY3WG511 Intersil
>> PY3WG511-F Intersil
>> PY3WG511V2H1 Marvell
>> PY3WG511V3 Atheros
>> PY3WG511TV1H3 Atheros
>>That last is probably the WG511T, a distinctly different Netgear product, and
>>I'm thinking the prior one may be as well, leaving the first three as members
>>of the base WG511 family, with two chip vendors.
>
>Incidentally, the reason they don't change the part number is to avoid
>having massive dealer returns for obsolete stock. If the new version
>is "functionally identical" to the original, with the same part
>number, then the dealer is stuck with the "old" stock. Usually, the
>new version is better in some way, but this time, it's the other way
>around.

As someone who has worked in the industry I'm familiar with the practice, but
I likewise know that there are tradeoffs (in such things as WIP, scrap,
support confusion), and other ways to manage the issue. Worse, I see another
motive in the sleazy, misleading way the naming is being exploited: Netgear
touts the WG511 as CNET Editors' Choice and PC World Best Buy (see
<http://netgear.com/products/details/WG511.php>), yet those awards were earned
by the v1 design, not the current v2 design, which is really a different
product. I'm guessing this may well violate the terms of those awards.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>