🚀 go-pugleaf

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.