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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (25801)	11/11/1997 12:41:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1580436

Ali - Clueless one, I responded to your post with references. You must have missed it. Not suprising seeing as you have trouble reading. The link you refered to has nothing whatsoever to do with the original point, clueless one. This involves the Pentium Pro and Pentium II processors and they are not affected by the bug you are blowing your horn about. In addition you are once again proving yourself wrong. You are the one who insisted that reprogrammable microcode wasn't available and now you post "proof" by pointing to an article that discusses reprogrammable microcode. Real smart Ali. This is as good as your "proof" that the 440LX chipset was the "slowest" when you showed us all that it was only a little faster than the fastest. Now you prove that there is no reprogrammable microcode by pointing us to an article about reprogrammable microcode. Brilliant! When are you going to condem AMD for existing bugs running perfectly legal code? No need for viruses, no need for hackers. Just like the bug that cost Intel $500 million. The K6 is bug infested right now and all you can do is condem Intel for undefined operation of illegal hacker code. Are you entitled to a refund for your bug infested K6? amd.com EP

To: Ali Chen who wrote (25801)	11/11/1997 1:16:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580436

Elmer, Paul, Intel Pentium II is a piece of crap and Intel does not stand behind its products. Ali is right, the "FP inexact exception" bug is listed in the category "NO FIX" along with eighteen other errors in the Pentium II. In fact, out of 14 other bugs they claim will eventually be fixed, they have actually fixed 3. Then there's 9 bugs they swept under the rug by "re-specifying" the CPU! 18 bugs that will NEVER be fixed 11 bugs that might be fixed -- eventually 9 bugs "explained away" as features ONE KILLER BUG THAT REQUIRES THAT YOU POWER OFF YOUR CPU, POTENTIALLY WITH A HALF-WRITTEN FAT AND DIRECTORY STRUCTURE! Petz