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: wanna_bmw who wrote (169835)	8/23/2002 12:33:26 PM
From: jjayxxxx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

You can't be serious. I understand your dislike of Van Smith. But rationalizing that it is okay for Intel to "fudge" the numbers because everyone else does is 1) wrong, and 2) totally missing the point. And a new point, point 3) the word "fudge" works here, but the word "fraud" does too. dictionary.com Assuming the allegations so far 'exposed' are true (which I admit could easily be a wrong assumption), it would appear to perfectly satisfy the definition of fraud: "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." But back to point 1) that it is wrong to "fudge" the numbers. Do you agree with this point? Or is it okay for Intel because "everybody else does it"? And for point 2) the difference is that BAPCO is supposed to be an independent body, providing an accurate measure of PC performance. They have intentionally deceived on both accounts (especially the latter, again assuming the accuracy of the allegations). In your Apple example, at least they say "look how well we perform on Photoshop" or some such thing. Maybe deceptive because they are focusing on a couple photoshop filters, but at least they aren't running some unknown pro-Apple task in the background and then telling everybody "look how well we perform on this independent benchmark". I mean "Internet Content Creation" and "Office Productivity" aren't exactly implying specialized tasks. See the difference? JJ

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (169835)	8/23/2002 12:42:37 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

wbmw, I had an enormous laugh after reading Dean Kent's impression, and then reading Van Smith's. That idiot can wail and hollar all he wants, and his band of cult zealots will hang on his every word. He can go ahead and join the lawsuit, too, since he seems to think it appropriate. Hey, whatever gets Intel down, eh? <ggg> The message makes you uncomfortable, attack the messenger. Now that you realize that Intel is eager to "fudge" numbers to put themselves in a better light, you should also take a look back to DEC, Compaq, IBM, Commodore, Amiga, Apple, AMD, and countless others who have done the exact same in the past. When Apple shows off a couple supra-optimized Photoshop filters to prove that the Power MAC has the strength of two Pentium 4 CPUs, I don't see any law suits or criminal charges. Apple, like Intel, can claim any usage model they want, and technically be correct, at least from certain points of view. Since Apple cheats, it is ok for Intel to cheat. Meanwhile, they continue to miss the fact that AMD's model numbers are similarly apt to come into scrutiny, especially since AMD markets them as the primary performance differentiator between their CPUs. Change the subject The usage model for SysMark 2002 therefore is not bad, just uncommon Interesting explanation. I think your sense of objectivity is very selective. Selective to situation when no harm can be done by being objective. BTW, I am disappointed by your response. Joe