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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles R who wrote (11760)	10/6/2000 2:20:09 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Chuck, re:Doug:<<Compatibility issues were somewhat common, definitely not impossible to get around, but definitely annoying.>> <Like I said before, what you seem to be talking about is such a small part of the business, it does not matter. It may matter to you but it didn't matter to the OEMs who successfully sold many millions of K6s.> I agree with you here, half the Intel CPU's are being sold with VIA chipsets and there are still some compatibility problems. My Intel camera, for example, says "designed to work with Intel chipsets." I wonder why? The drivers seem to discriminate against VIA, they work with an old K6-2 ALi Aladdin chipset system just fine. Petz

To: Charles R who wrote (11760)	10/6/2000 3:42:08 PM
From: that_crazy_doug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<< I am a believer in dual sourcing based on a lot of experience and I see no merit to this line of thinking. >> You really see no merit to the line of thinking that the quality of the product matters? That you shouldn't use a second source for something if the two sourses have widely different quality? Then so be it. << Why would AMD not be able to supply to Dell? >> They had severe yield problems and were unable to even supply gateway? << No, I am not. Are you? >> Yes, I've built at least one machine on every major consumer desktop architecture in the past 3 years from both AMD and Intel. (k6-2, k6-3, p2, p3 (katmai and coppermine), celeron (pre/post cache fiasco), duron, athlon, and thunderbird. << Like I said before, what you seem to be talking about is such a small part of the business, it does not matter. It may matter to you but it didn't matter to the OEMs who successfully sold many millions of K6s. >> It might matter to a company who wants their users to be able to upgrade without problems, aka, Dell, who used that same reasoning as part of the reason they wouldn't adopt an athlon line. << Completely unbounded statement. You might want to click back and see what I said. Alternately, feel free to search under my profile to see what I have posted on this topic. >> Since the performance is made up of at least 3 parts i mentioned, (ipc, clock speed, and optimization effect) and you admit you don't know 2 of the 3, i jumped to the conclusion that you also didn't know the sum of the parts, but apparantly you think otherwise.

To: Charles R who wrote (11760)	10/6/2000 4:51:17 PM
From: jamok99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Charles, <<Looks like your relationship with Compaq tech support is bad for whatever reason. And, it is not that uncommon for any company to have some problem customer interactions. But there is no way a company with severe customer support problems would be where Compaq is today (#1 world-wide>> I find your logic somewhat ironic in light of the fact that it appears here on the AMD board. Suppose one substituted the word "Intel" for "Compaq, and "design/manufacturing" for "customer support". The sentence would then read, "But there is no way a company with severe design/manufacturing problems would be where Intel is today (#1 world-wide)." Really? Companies that screw-up big time can't maintain their bellweather status (at least for a significant period of time)?