Xref: utzoo comp.sys.intel:1450 comp.arch:18932 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.arch Subject: Re: Intel bugs / bugged by Intel :-( Message-ID: <73898@sgi.sgi.com> Date: 1 Nov 90 18:47:13 GMT References: <35431@cup.portal.com> Sender: guest@sgi.sgi.com Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 23 In article <35431@cup.portal.com>, mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater) writes: > ... >The position of most companies is that their customers get the lists, ... Hah! --expletives deleted-- My personal experience with AMD in the last 18 months has been that if I find 1 bug and my AMD FAE and I are persistent about it, then AMD will eventually deign to confirm the problem exists and to reward me with one or two more bugs in an old bug list. For one 29K characteristic (it won't be changed so it is not a bug), it took enormous effort for months from a lot of people to get AMD to admit that concern was warrented and to get the easy work-around. I have had similar recent and ancient experiences with INTEL. I don't recall any difference between the two companies in this regard. I think the problem is not a matter corporate nastiness, but of the familiar human reluctance to admit errors. People who find problems with my code might say nasty things about my enthusiasm for agreeing with them. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com