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: Elmer who wrote (95448)	2/27/2000 10:49:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574004

Ahhh no! Ted I clearly said that it was less than 2 years. "That's a year or so. Certainly less than 2" I am at a loss to understand how you can read "Certainly less than 2" to mean 2-3. I don't know how it could be more clear. EP, are you freaking out or what. Initially I read that you thought the Chandler project would be completed in 2001 or in a year....which prompted me to come back with 2-3 yrs to build a commercial building. Then you corrected me and said that you did not say in a year but rather a year or so. Since you made such a point of it, I assumed that you were pointing out that we were more in agreement than disagreement re construction time frames and a typical fab construction is closer to 2 yrs than 1 year. None of this, of course, changes the fact that a year or so or 2001 ready, would mean a record fab construction pace for Intel, assuming that that pace can be maintained. Therefore to use the Chandler project as an example of how to do it right and by comparison AMD has screwed up with the Dresden project is a poor one in my book, particularly when the processes originally intended for Dresden were changed in midstream. ted