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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (140588)	7/31/2001 5:13:58 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Tench: Isn't that what you implied by Message 16145434 ? "We didn't try real hard until after we acquired ...", isn't that saying we do not need 8 way until we could? Intel was implying that it was going higher than 4 way as a goal before that acquisition was made. Other OEMs were building such x86 based systems using proprietory chip sets at that time. Or how about claiming that a recompile shouldn't be done for Sledgehammer when it is exactly what you want later for P4 benchmarks: Message 14166669 . Granted, most of the that section was referring to "the copper is not needed until 0.13 micron" debates of last year and those were not with you, mostly with Semiconeng, Processboy, Elmer, and others. Sorry for my wording implying you were in those debates of 1999 and 2000 (although you did get into the P3-1.13 spat with negative comments about Tom's Hardware reporting and that sometimes was given as proof that copper was needed for 0.18 to prevent what happened). Pete