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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (27133)12/14/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 70976
 
tony, q1 is an unknown, even to intel. in jan of this year, mu said that thought the koreans were out of inventory. they were full of crap and i said so right after they said it. they were wrong. it wouldn't surprise me if intel is wrong.

then again, they may be right. again, why not invest in your future by purchasing more equipment and why not raise prices like actually occur during a real shortage? these are questions that shouldn't be easily dismissed, imho, if the truth is your goal rather than affirmation.



To: Tony Viola who wrote (27133)12/14/1998 1:18:00 AM
From: Math Junkie  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Re: <<The rule of thumb is 486 or older is an automatic replacement...non compliant.>>

There's nothing about the 486 that affects Y2K one way or the other. It's the BIOS that makes the difference. If the manufacturer is willing to come up with a compliant BIOS for obsolete boards, then you can have a Y2K compliant 486 board. I know this because I have done Y2K testing on 486 boards from an industrial supplier.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News