SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Process Boy who wrote (87803)9/5/1999 9:31:00 AM
From: steve harris  Respond to of 186894
 
Process Boy,

I do appreciate that information.
The oldest news I could find so far (diggin for scraps) was a 98 article, but it didn't mention where the name originated.
My best guess was the chip will eventually be copper so they started the name for the copper process and wouldn't have to change it later.
Fascinating.....

I wish you would join SI and your situation continues to let you participate. Some of us old guys got in free back when SI was started, so we don't appreciate the situation you are faced with.

Go Intel!

steve



To: Process Boy who wrote (87803)9/5/1999 12:19:00 PM
From: Tony Viola  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
PB,

I still like Intel's choice in the matter (no Copper on .18).

Intel getting the performance out of Aluminum "one more time" appears to be in the cards, while saving a whole ton of conversion money at this point. Horror stories abound with more companies than just AMD trying to do copper. IBM either "did it right the first time", or did a good job keeping their own start-up problems secret. Gotta believe it's the latter. Like you've said before, one "restriction" on Intel bringing out new technologies is that they have to be ready to do the copy exact thing over several fabs. IBM is probably on one, maybe two fabs only with copper, I'm guessing. Who knows what the heck they're doing back in those Vermont woods!

Tony



To: Process Boy who wrote (87803)9/5/1999 2:13:00 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
See what Barrett & Co are reading at Intel:

amazon.com