> I'll bet it's more nuanced than that.

Oh, most certainly it is.

> Intel gets the benefit of public disclosure of a big and costly problem,
> BUT, at the 11th hour, the "business realities" of their OEM partners
> "forces" them to continue shipping the defective product, but only to select
> partners.

Would you rather have a "hush-hush" fix? Not I. As for being "forced," I doubt 
that's the case. Especially since the fixed part is coming out in 2-3 weeks. 
But, who knows?


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew S. Baker
[mailto:[email protected]]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wed, 09 Feb 2011
08:32:04 -0800
Subject: Re: Intel pulls a fast one in Sandy Bridge fiasco |
Processors - InfoWorld


> I'll bet it's more nuanced than that.
> 
> Intel gets the benefit of public disclosure of a big and costly problem,
> BUT, at the 11th hour, the "business realities" of their OEM partners
> "forces" them to continue shipping the defective product, but only to select
> partners.
> 
> 
> Now, you have to ask yourself the following:
> 
> -- Are the other partners willing to lose market share by waiting for
> properly remediated motherboards before they ship the cool and exciting
> product?
> -- Will the OEMs label the product accordingly, or physically prevent the
> use of the slots in question so there are no customer surprises later on?
> -- Just how many motherboards will Intel actually have to recall when all is
> said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> So much for an almost $billion recall.  They have thus far averted a costly
> disaster rather nicely.
> 
> 
> *ASB *(Find me online via About.Me <http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker/bio>)
>  *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...
> 
>  *
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Matthew W. Ross
> <[email protected]>wrote:
> 
> > Apparently, this is due to the OEMs wanting to release their products...
> > not because Intel didn't want to fix the problem.
> >
> > The compromise is apparently "We won't use the 3rd through 6th SATA ports,
> > or we'll get an additional SATA controller".
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> >
> > --Matt Ross
> > Ephrata School District
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Andrew S. Baker
> > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wed, 09 Feb 2011
> > 07:40:42 -0800
> > Subject: Intel pulls a fast one in Sandy Bridge fiasco |
> > Processors - InfoWorld
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> http://www.infoworld.com/t/processors/intel-pulls-fast-one-in-sandy-bridge-fiasco-784?elq=true#comment-33801
> > >
> > > Be careful if you're in the market for a high-end Intel-based
> motherboard
> > in
> > > the near term...*[1]*
> > >
> > > So much for wondering how they would handle a possible billion dollar
> > > recall...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker>
> > > *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...*
> > > *
> > > [1] Unless you don't care about SATA-2 any more...*
> > >
> >
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to [email protected]
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Reply via email to