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: Mary Cluney who wrote (170882)	9/10/2002 2:49:36 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, good response. Something tells me that Ali was once one of those design engineers that never "believed" in validation. <VBG> wbmw

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (170882)	9/10/2002 5:01:12 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"How many hardware, software, firmware components are there that go inside or are attached to a PC that have to interface with the main processor? I don't know and you don't either. It is undoubtedly a large number." First I was going to say "Hello Mary, long time no see!" Then, for the sake of maintaining "constructive confrontation" Intel-style, I say: you better speak for yourself, not for others. One reason why you "don't know" is that you did not define what "go[es] inside or are attached to a PC". You seem to be of opinion that a PC maker should always check for "compatibility" with some weird java-scripts out of some Finnish or Polish web site. If you include "software components" in your wide definition, then you are in deep trouble: as one of my former bosses used to lecture, the number of software permutations exceeds the number of protons in our Universe. "Just because someone claims he built something to stardard, spec, whatever, does not mean he successfully did so" Yes, that's why no-one in industry trusts claims, even from "brand" names. What you do you "work" with a vendor, you establish a thorough set of verifiable parameters and validation procedures, to the best level within your time and headcount constraints, and force your vendor to continuously maintain evidences of compliance. Otherwise they will hear my "good-bye". "That is why you test. Everything should be tested, at least once <GGGGG>. " That's funny. A retired investor is teaching a senior validation professional on how an what to test. The whole "200" number was used to impress readers about complexity of PC validation, with hint that AMD-based systems are much more expensive to validate. By noting the large number of components to validate, you actually refuted this claim, since the processor is only one of these 200 (or whatever) system components. In any case, the cost of validation is amortized within the system vendor, it is built into the PC price. And the cost of "deployment, development, and imaging", as per Gartner BS, has nothing to do with it, and is not much different from Intel systems. - Ali