AI
Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:50:08 PM
And further mea culpa:
Am I just replying to myself? (Maybe I should get a second ID). (
)
I would like to mention that one article I read yesterday mentioned that IBM noted they had found a design flaw in one of the (unnamed) memory modules and rejected it. Thus the onus of the compatability requirement fell to the component manufacturer, not the pre-existant standing (Intel) chip. As the chip was already designed, the modules being designed later had the requirement to be compatable, in other words. One might reasonably say that the prior existing component cannot ensure compatablitiliy with the later designed component. In that case I am wrongly characterizing it as an Intel problem, and must add they are not involved at all in the HP recall, to my knowledge. They did have a recall the same day, but this was for their own chipset, a different matter all together. Apologies to Intel, and all Intellians, and other chip makers, AMD and VIA.
Perhaps I should have posted questions, rather than my opinions, which as someone not grounded in knowledge of the two opposing architectures, are necessarily based on my own conjectures, or even, my imagination. Thus, I should have simply asked, instead of putting forth my own guesses, how does the HP recall reflect on the underlying designs of the two chips, does anyone know, and what future impact might it have?
So, although this is not very graceful, I think I should say here that I should restrict my future posts to questions, congratulations to my fellow longs (if we get to that point) and poetry, which is inclusive by nature, and stick within that area as my expertise, not the areas of sharp and focused logics, such as engineering, manufacturing, and business!
my bad, _tal.
Am I just replying to myself? (Maybe I should get a second ID). (
) I would like to mention that one article I read yesterday mentioned that IBM noted they had found a design flaw in one of the (unnamed) memory modules and rejected it. Thus the onus of the compatability requirement fell to the component manufacturer, not the pre-existant standing (Intel) chip. As the chip was already designed, the modules being designed later had the requirement to be compatable, in other words. One might reasonably say that the prior existing component cannot ensure compatablitiliy with the later designed component. In that case I am wrongly characterizing it as an Intel problem, and must add they are not involved at all in the HP recall, to my knowledge. They did have a recall the same day, but this was for their own chipset, a different matter all together. Apologies to Intel, and all Intellians, and other chip makers, AMD and VIA.
Perhaps I should have posted questions, rather than my opinions, which as someone not grounded in knowledge of the two opposing architectures, are necessarily based on my own conjectures, or even, my imagination. Thus, I should have simply asked, instead of putting forth my own guesses, how does the HP recall reflect on the underlying designs of the two chips, does anyone know, and what future impact might it have?
So, although this is not very graceful, I think I should say here that I should restrict my future posts to questions, congratulations to my fellow longs (if we get to that point) and poetry, which is inclusive by nature, and stick within that area as my expertise, not the areas of sharp and focused logics, such as engineering, manufacturing, and business!
my bad, _tal.
