Elmer: Re: I am not simply critiquing your semantics, you are posting one thing then claiming you said another.
OK. Suit yourself. I made what I meant by my claim very clear. You seem to be the only person who still does not understand what I said. I am done trying to 'splain it to you.
Now you are apparently saying that Intel originally intended to have a 90nm product in 1H03 but no longer shows that on their roadmap...
I provided a link for that claim. WBMW claims that the information in the link is incorrect, and I am inclined to believe him. But the link does indeed prove that I did not make it up, as you claimed.
My point is that a rumor on the Inquirer doesn't mean it's true. That should be obvious to you by now.
Interesting that your final point has nothing to do with your obtuse argument about how wrong I was when I referenced 90nm when I should have said Prescott.
I am pretty sure that I saw the same info elsewhere. I just did a search on the Inquirer and could not find the article. Nevertheless, I have heard the same information many times. It has been posted here, and on many other boards. No Prescott until 4Q03. I am not saying it is true, I am saying it is what I heard.
None of us will know for sure if it is true until Prescott (or your mystery replacement vehicle) is released in volume.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
