On 6/27/07, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p@fixedpointgroup.com> wrote:
quoted text
> when competition is involved companies develop products as quickly as
> they can to keep up with the joneses. if your product(s) lack the bells
> and whistles the competition has, joey bagoconsumer will not buy your
> stuff b/c he's been successfully brainwashed into thinking feature X
> will make his life better. for an average computer user multicore
> processing doesn't do a whole lot besides compensate for slugware-driven
> OSes that are built like amUrican cars, whose primary purpose is to
> build product dependency and require replacement 4-5 years down the
> road. same lesson henry ford learned with the model t applies to
> large-scale hardware manufacturing.
>
> you make more money if your widgets break because your new widget is
> vastly improved. new packaging, same great defects!
>

But I need two cores because I want to run youtube AND the Explorer!

Meanwhile, I think the real problem here is them not releasing much
documentation on the problems to the public.

Bugs will happen, yeah, some are pretty bad; and yeah, part of the
cause of it is that they have unecessarily close deadlines
(unecessarily in the sense that the world doesn't really need the next
generation of processors real soon). But those are not the only
reasons for a buggy hardware, it's also a matter of human limitation.
It's unrealistic to think your hardware will be perfect.

All in all, the intel's core 2 clearly is not prepared for some
critical uses. That does not mean that you can't successfuly run it in
your desktop or even some servers. You'll most likely have much more
dangerous vulnerabilities in the software you're using anyway.