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: Paul Engel who wrote (47180)	1/24/1999 10:33:00 PM
From: ajbrenner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570495

Re: AMD will have to ANSWER why they have no roadmap for including security features in their CPUs. How about because It's no needed?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (47180)	1/24/1999 10:37:00 PM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 1570495

Paul, Re: "AMD will have to ANSWER why they have no roadmap for including security features in their CPUs." Good analysis, Paul ... Once again, AMD is behind in technology. (tm Yousef) Make It So, Yousef

To: Paul Engel who wrote (47180)	1/24/1999 11:32:00 PM
From: Scot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570495

Paul: >>>>This is the exact scenario that I predicted would happen - and indeed DID HAPPEN - during and after the Pentium FDIV debacle of November/December 1994. Most people at that time never heard of Intel, let alone the "Pentium". When Intel received constant National Press Coverage, and eventually agreed to replace the flawed Pentium chips, everybody KNEW the INTEL NAME and NEW INTEL STOOD BEHIND their NAME.<<<< It's a different world. In 1994, I was still using Mosaic. Yes, you're right in that FDIV debacle provided Intel with significant press coverage. But my recollection was that Intel refused to acknowledge there was a problem until the clamor rose to an unprecedented level. Then, grudgingly, Intel agreed to take back the chips. Of course this was accompanied by lamo credit card charges and other "customer service" oriented policies intended to ensure Intel didn't get ripped off by anyone trying to scrounge a free pentium. The significant proliferation of computers and increased use of the Internet have made technology issues something many people can understand and appreciate. There are so many angles that this id issue can take. I'm still not convinced that it rises to the level of catastrophically bad for Intel, because security is a real issue. So security will remain the core of the argument. Obviously you won't agree, but IMO, the ID thing stinks. Captain Winky and the crew at Microsoft along with the world's database marketers will come up with a million uses for this technology, all designed to watch us, sell us stuff, and make sure we don't steal their products. -Scot