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: Elmer who wrote (35700)	8/9/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570420

Elmer, <.. there is some truth in what you are saying> Good, you eventually show some comprehension. <but I disagree with your characterization of it being a "loss"> What the heck to disagree with? Were those $6B spent from Intel overall assets or not? Yes, as a matter of fact they were spent in the first half of this year. Payments to DEC, stock buy-backs, etc... With the current flawed accounting they were not spent by the formal definition, but if you prefer to be fooled by this accounting flaw, be my guest. For details see: forbes.com <..AMD continues to loose valuable talent.> You think too high of yourself, boy:) <No wonder people are leaving AMD>.. Here you are again with your straight lies. Reference or link, please. No engineer in sober mind would leave AMD on the verge of major breakthrough in Intel-AMD war ... There might be some drain into DELL, but because DELL offers way too high compensations with huge stock options. However please notice, the DELL is also in the top of that list from the Forbes magazine, so the consequences of this scum scheme will eventually show up. For your convenience I am including the link: forbes.com This table shows that if Intel would account for stock options, there will be a LOSS of $281M instead of $5B profit (in 1996)!!!!! So, the scum runs for at least three years by now. <Perhaps this explains why Intel has the people to produce successful products> Yes, you forgot to add "high quality products": FDIV bug, F00F, various PII "microcode patches", ECC problems in Xeon chip, I lost the count... In fact, the residual of Intel engineers are only capable to dress the single 5-years old design into different caches, that's it. Pathetic. You must remember the famous phrase by Barrett that the half-life of an engineer at Intel is just 3 years. It means that all actual designers are gone, only the highly-compensated (by stock options plan) management has left who, according to the Peter's principle, must be on the verge of incompetency. This theory would explain the current level of "innovation" and product quality at Intel. IMHT.