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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (84900)	1/4/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572185

Bill - <PB, The initial celeron was a lame duck, the later celeron with full speed cache bit both sides as it was demonstrable better than the P-II....showing a lack of planning, a 32k cache would have allowed it to kill the K-6 and not be a threat to the P-II. And now we have more moves with bad execution and planning. The rambus and 820 debacles, the dell freezups, the lack of parts at 750/800 look like a twig up a grasshoppers ass effect on Intel. They leapt into action at high speed, when prodded, tumbling over and over and landing badly.> The Celeron effort did start slowly, but ultimately is a wildly successful program. The i820 delays, and to be fair, the Coppermine delays, certainly were not shining moments for Intel engineering, but I do not believe the recovery effort as bad as you depict. As for P750 / 800 availability, Intel clearly stated that this was not going to be a typical volume launch. This does not imply by any stretch of the imagination that there are catastrophic engineering problems. Nay, the PIII 750 and 800 releases were enabled due to better yields than originally forecast for P858. However, the products are released much earlier in the production cycle than historical. Plese see this post for more of my take on Intel launches these days: Message 124545 PB