Re:Stops Pentiums dead (and how does Cyrix perform?)
Anthony DeStefano (destefano@usa.net)
Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:40:41 -0500 (EST)
On 8 Nov, Jason Burrell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> It does kill this P133, but we all know that.
>
> I wonder what the changes are of Intel releasing a fix? It probably isn't
> bloody likely, but suffice to say that if they don't I for one will never,
> ever buy another Intel product. First they broke the FPU, but "only
> technical people" were supposed to care, though they did offer
> replacements after getting roasted on the Internet and in the media
> (though I don't know what somebody had to do to get one. Anyone?). Now
> they've screwed up and got a "shut down internal clock" option in their
> chip.
>
> I wonder what the chances are of Intel issuing a sane recall? It probably
> isn't bloody likely, but suffice to say that if they don't I won't be
> buying or recommending Intel products anymore. First they broke the FPU,
> but "only technical people" were supposed to care. They did finally offer
> a replacement after getting roasted on the Internet and in the media. Now
> they've accidentally included a "shut down internal clock" option in their
> chips.
>
> Anyone know what people had to go through to get the FPU fix?
>
> The last thing I want is my machines crashing continuously because
> somebody telnets in and nukes my boxes. If Intel is going to let me haul
> my CPU into a local electronics store some weekend and get it fixed free
> of charge that's one thing. If they expect me to upgrade to a PPro or PII
> because they screwed up then that's quite another.
>
> Sure, shit happens, and I don't much mind so long as it doesn't happen to
> often and the defecators (in this case Intel) manage to clean up after
> themselves without putting me through too much trouble.
>
Maybe all of us should email Intel about issuing a recall?
Who knows maybe we can get under their skin enough for them to actually
do it.
--
-= Anthony DeStefano =-
<destefano@usa.net>