To: Elmer Phud who wrote (178448 ) 6/29/2004 1:24:03 AM From: Ali Chen Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894 EP, "You know nothing about the subject, much less the specific problem. There are so many clues right under your nose and you can't even see them." Yeah, and you, the highest expert in the filed, immediately grasped all clues and announced that it _IS_ a passivation layer improperly removed, right?"Here's a hint... many products are produced on this process but only one is showing a problem. Can you guess why? I'll tell you this, even if you went back and got your high school diploma and went on to a PHD you wouldn't be able to know without inside knowledge. There are too many things that are unknown to even the educated, much less you. Why do you think this one would be different from other products on the same process?" Huh? I thought you already explained this to us, haven't you? That a glass passivation layer was not etched away from die pads, right? Isn't it what you revealed originally,Message 20254028 Ttherefore (my uneducated guess) the I/O pads can't make an electrical contact with chip carrier through the glass, a perfect insulator, and it should be very easy for Intel to catch this on a tester, but they embarrassingly somehow missed this, passed all internal validation, and even shipped the product? All without making those electrical contacts, right, Elmer? I was wondering too, why would the typical procedure of de-passivation of die pads on this particular new chip be any different from thousands of other chips Intel makes, but hey, you are the expert here, we have to trust you on this. Right? I have to agree, this is a fools rant. And the fool, as appears, is you. Cheers, - Ali, LOL.