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.

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

To: Burt Masnick who wrote (108713)	8/28/2000 4:18:40 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Burt, RE:"As a working engineer of some experience, this smells to me of higher ups demanding that product be shipped and dates be met. Usually engineers are reluctant to let product go out to market. We engineers want to test endlessly to ensure perfection. The art is in knowing when to release the product. Microsoft, in my opinion, releases too early and they have gotten away with it. Up to this past year, Intel was not prone to these kinds of errors. I suspect that the pressure has simply been ramped up to such a high degree that truth can be crushed under managerial demands. For a while." This is nothing new...heck AMD was deemed a bunch of screw-ups while they pushed the K-6 to it's limits... Again, it's all about Mhz...if your chip don't scale you go to jail...and do not pass go... I think Intel should be given credit for getting the P6 to 1000 Mhz...truely a wonder in itself... Jim

To: Burt Masnick who wrote (108713)	8/28/2000 7:20:25 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Burt, Great Post. But the key for me was not when Tom claimed he had a problem. They key was the hard OCP (??) guy also had a problem. When two reputable reviewers had problems - that was significant and alarm bells should have rung. I do believe that the endless reign of screwups is indicative of a major management problem. And a shakeup is required. Heads should roll. I have lots of faith Intels engineers are as good as anybodys. There is a clear management failure here. regards, Kash

To: Burt Masnick who wrote (108713)	8/30/2000 9:51:48 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 186894

Burt, Fortunately, this is a problem that can be fixed. Unfortunately, it never should have occurred in the first place. I'm not as certain about that as you. The problems Intel described in their press release appeared much less serious than the ones Tom was seeing. Watsonyouth has pointed out that the process seems to have been pushed too far at 1.1GHz. Scumbria

To: Burt Masnick who wrote (108713)	8/30/2000 10:47:25 AM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I think the effect will be to enhance AMD's ability to enter the corporate market. While it still may be true that "nobody ever get's fired for buying Intel (or IBM), it may also be true that buying AMD increasingly will be considered a safe and logical choice. Some analysts have said that while AMD has been able to increase production and market share in the consumer and SOHO markets, they will have an difficult task to take share in the mid to large corporate market - the crown jewel of Intel's profits. Intel's continued mistakes of disregarding engineering discipline in favor of marketing bravado will do it's damage.