SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Elmer who wrote (26005)11/16/1997 1:22:00 AM
From: Ali Chen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583413
 
Elmer, <Looks like you were wrong again..> This is your look, others have an apparently different view:

===== From USENET ==========
"In article <64hq47$mhn@news.tuwien.ac.at>,
>
>Bugs can happen, but trying to bullshit us really gives the name
>"Intel" a bad taste.

And what would you call it if you found out that they knew
about this bug the whole time, but have intentionally lied
to the public and the press?

--
"Intel Secrets --
What Intel doesn't want you to know"( ) Robert Collins"
=============eoq=============



To: Elmer who wrote (26005)11/16/1997 1:17:00 PM
From: Petz  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1583413
 
elmer, The software "fix" will cause enormous overhead for interrupts 0-6, which sometimes invoke time-critical user routines. I don't think it will satisfy everyone. Intel should offer replacement chips to anyone who has their own software which relies on fast int 0-6 response.

Petz



To: Elmer who wrote (26005)11/16/1997 1:23:00 PM
From: Petz  Respond to of 1583413
 
Elmer did you notice that this is BUG NUMBER 81 !!! HA!


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News