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: VinWood who wrote (51940)	4/2/1998 3:46:00 PM
From: Jeff Fox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Vin, re: Burn in lot should be rejected in its entirety for a certain percentage of failures Yeah - that too. Sample burn in is a part quality control of even healthy processes. 100% burn in is required for new or sick lines. The choice is purely a matter of statistics given the quality level that the policy and quality goals of the manufacturer. Sorry - whether sample by lot or 100%, it sure sounds like screening to me. If you like another word feel free to use it. In fact Nat Semi has been fined several times in the past,once that I am intimately familiar with for $6 mil., for falsifying burn-in data. I read that Fairchild also did this. Look where it has gotten them. National bought the remains of Fairchild. The combination isn't exactly the industry leader, right? I know another company that is the industry leader that religiously uses both 100% burn in on new processes, then sample burn in after the process is proven to meet quality requirements. This company has never cheated. In fact it produces this data for its own use without external prodding as it really wants to know its own quality level in order to perfect its factories. As for its customers, they allow Intel to ship "dock-to-stock" as they are assured of high quality. Jeff