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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (57619)	5/7/1999 4:52:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1572107

Kevin - < Doesn't building a wall in a clean room involve certain issues? You just can move in a pile of bricks and mortar. Tough to build a wall when you've got a line running in the same cleanroom.> Yes, it does involve certain issues, but it can be done. The "walls" are not bricks and mortar, for one thing. The internal walls of a clean room can be moved, kind of the same idea as cubicles in offices. And while you are working on a certain section of the fab, you need to isolate it from the portion that is processing material, with most likely, another wall, that will likely be taken down when the install is done. I've seen this done time and time over. All those semi equipment stocks would be in a world of hurt if there wasn't a method to install equipment in a working fab. Back to the central question, Cu vs. fab. I'm not aware of any item that would be required in the construction of the shell that would inherently make Cu processing safer to the rest of the process. Isn't F25 supposed to go to Cu sometime? If not, I really don't understand AMD's fab strategy. Anyway, I'm not doing a very good job today in the coherence department. I hope this gets the basic gist across. PB