🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:46:15 -0500, suarel@idt.net (H. West) wrote:

>In article <358fa940.776544@news.supernews.com>, nomail@nospam.com says...
>< On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:15:30 -0500, suarel@idt.net (H. West) wrote:
>< 
>< >In article <pLMYl5dhX7hK-pn2-XzkpqYmlKFXq@localhost>, krw@ibm.net says...
>< >< On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 17:18:47, "Doug Chism" 
>< >< <chismdm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>< >< 
>< >< > 
>< >< > \>AMD has started designing their chips since the K5.
>< >< >  Yeah - after Intel designed and released an instruction set.
>< >< > 
>< >< > >Not only do they have to
>< >< > >do that, they have to take into consideration compatibility with intel
>< >< > >standards.
>< >< > 
>< >< > Its a lot easier to design a chip to a spec then to come up with a design
>< >< > from scratch.
>< >< 
>< >< Have you done either?  I suggest that you are wrong.  It is 
>< >< *very* difficult to clone a chip with all of it's "strangeness" 
>< >< and make it better.  There are many gotchas that aren't in the 
>< >< specs.  In fact there are things in "errata" that may not be 
>< >< known to the cloner.  Clean rooom and all.
>< >
>< >Who gives a fuck? So what if one chip was harder to make than another, it has no 
>< >affect on whether you should buy it or not.
>< 
>< OK, who's job was it to watch the assholes?  It appears this one has
>< wandered in.
>
>It's ok, the exit's right over there, just wander back on out.

Ladies first.