Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?

By: JS (JS.delete@this.NOSPAM.COM), July 2, 2007 9:02 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
philt (ptay1685@bigpond.net.au) on 7/2/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 7/2/07 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Sorry, I didn't realize your intent was to turn this into a rant against Intel and
>>your presumptions about activities the management engages in - without so much as evidence.
>>
>>I'm not going to be drawn into this. I thought we were talking about published
>>errata, and whether it is something to be concerned about.
>>
>>Nice try, but I'm not going to be sucked into this quagmire. Later.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dean
>
>You invoke children - i point out that Intel execs are not children. You
>suddenly realise that you have blown your argument. What next? How to save
>face. Got it!
>
>Accuse the protagonist of wanting to have a rant - very clever. The usual
>cop out for someone who does not want to admit they have lost the argument.
>
>This cop out is used by all the intellectually challenged pretenders on the
>web that are trying to mix in with the big boys.
>
>No wonder Pauol Demone left in disgust.
>
>P.S. Dont forget to delete this post and close the thread. That gives you some additonal protection from the truth.
>

For me, your rambling does not make any sense.

There are legal requirements when you have to publish
a problem/fault in your product. This also depends on
where the product/component is used: mission critical /
non-mission critical etc. You cannot assume that e.g.
every problem with a disc player, a refrigerator etc.
comes to your attention. If e.g. the life of people is
at stake, you have to act.
Coming back to microprocessors, you also have to apply to
these rules. If your processors are not used in mission
critical environment, you have not a lot of requirements
to follow. Publishing errata to the public is definitely
not one of the requirements. Otherwise, a lot of companies
would not get away with n o t publishing errata.
So, Intel / AMD / ARM / ... would be and are absolutely
on the safe side if they do not publish errata. Thus, I do
not understand what your point is.
As said before, this looks different if your application
is thus that a fault may cause lost of lives, e.g. cars,
airplanes, nuclear power plants. Then you have to act
according to a defined level hardware / software safety
level (SIL level), which again is different depending on
the specific application. This is then a s y s t e m
safety level. People designing these systems need to
know errata of the components, and they get the
information. These components may need to be more
reliable to achieve the required system level safety.
This is one of the reasons why server processors (although
not being really mission critical, but there may be more
money at stake) are tested more thoroughly.
I remember in the nineties that there was a SPARC processor
used in aerospace. The manufacturer definitely claimed 'not
to be used in aerospace' to move all responsibility to the
system level - thats life.

I find your view on the situation including your Intel bashing rather childish. Intel is doing more than legally
enforced, they are doing more than legally necessary, they
have always done enough with respect to legal requirements:
you do not have a point.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Matt Sayler2007/06/27 10:39 AM
  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?anonymous2007/06/27 01:08 PM
  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?David Kanter2007/06/27 01:34 PM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Joe Chang2007/06/27 02:01 PM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?A.T. Ho2007/06/27 03:33 PM
      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?David Kanter2007/06/27 05:31 PM
      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Andi Kleen2007/06/27 11:35 PM
        Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?anonymous2007/06/28 03:16 AM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Jack A.2007/06/29 06:43 PM
      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?anon2007/07/01 09:13 AM
        AMD DocumentationDavid Kanter2007/07/01 10:03 AM
  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Andi Kleen2007/06/27 03:02 PM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Paul2007/06/27 04:06 PM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Groo2007/06/28 12:10 AM
  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Linus Torvalds2007/06/27 04:10 PM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Rob Thorpe2007/06/28 12:11 AM
      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?JS2007/06/28 03:32 AM
        Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Rob Thorpe2007/06/28 04:15 AM
          Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?JS2007/06/28 08:55 PM
            Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Rob Thorpe2007/06/28 11:44 PM
      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Linus Torvalds2007/06/28 07:30 AM
        Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/28 03:28 PM
          Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Linus Torvalds2007/06/28 06:31 PM
            Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/29 12:58 AM
              Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?IlleglWpns2007/06/29 01:23 AM
                Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/29 07:16 PM
              Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Andi Kleen2007/06/29 03:36 AM
                Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/29 07:09 PM
                  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Brendan2007/06/29 10:04 PM
                    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/30 12:52 AM
                      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Brendan2007/06/30 08:25 AM
                  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Jukka Larja2007/06/29 10:22 PM
                  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?dan2007/07/05 11:36 AM
              Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Dean Kent2007/06/29 06:31 AM
                Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/29 06:57 PM
                  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Dean Kent2007/06/29 07:50 PM
                    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/06/30 12:57 AM
                      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Dean Kent2007/06/30 04:34 AM
                        Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/07/02 02:33 AM
                          Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Dean Kent2007/07/02 04:36 AM
                            Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?philt2007/07/02 02:02 PM
                              Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?JS2007/07/02 09:02 PM
                      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?David Kanter2007/07/02 02:20 PM
            Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Max2007/06/29 10:23 AM
        Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Rob Thorpe2007/06/29 05:15 AM
          Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Michael S2007/06/29 05:57 AM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?jozzete2007/06/28 11:54 PM
  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Brendan2007/06/28 06:15 PM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?france2007/06/28 09:38 PM
  Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?rwessel2007/06/29 02:20 AM
    Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?jschlossel2007/06/29 09:16 AM
      Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Dean Kent2007/06/29 09:25 AM
        Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?Howard Chu2007/06/30 04:09 AM
          Core 2 Errata -- problematic or overblown?JS2007/07/02 03:58 AM
      baby and bath waterrels2007/06/30 06:00 AM
      Planes, trains and cars...Anna N.2007/07/01 05:28 PM
        Planes, trains and cars...David W. Hess2007/07/01 06:40 PM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell green?