I have seen some traffic on the usenets concerning a compatibility issue with Windows 95 on a Pentium Pro model, but that's all I have seen concerning problems on MUEI computers. I would think if they had a bad quality problem, the "real tekkies" would be screaming about it?
And on the issue of Mu lagging with the 64meg, they have ALWAYS lagged on the new density. However, as long as I have been following them, they have been, or were very close to being, the technology leader.
This is not a contradiction--they have used the "next density technology" on their "present density". And they have consistently had the greatest number of die per wafer. In past down cycles, Mu has done better than the average, financially. So, maybe there is some method to their madness. When a company goes to the next (4x) density, it gains a factor of 1.3x in bits per wafer. Obviously, if it can maintain the same yield, it is a good deal! The more aggressive a company pushes the technology, the more difficult it would be to maintain the same yield, tho, or even to reach breakeven with the lower density (1/1.3 = 0.77, or 77% of the lower density's yield). There is some advantage to one package vs 4, but the yield is the most important. In every downcycle, there is always talk of "skipping the
current density" and going to the next, but when we get past it and look back at published historical data, there is a pretty constant 3 years between crossover points.
By the way, has anyone seen any RECENT info on Mu's present chips per wafer? I saw a comment by Skip Bedard that they were "producing an astonishing 897 16m-bit chips on 8-inch wafers". This was in a PC Week article earlier this year. Not sure whether to believe this or not! Pretty astonishing, if true! Also, I have not heard anybody make any claims at to what yield they are running. Any info on this?
dave
|
