Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Intel bugs / bugged by Intel :-(
Message-ID: <85727@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 8 Nov 90 20:39:44 GMT
References: <35325@cup.portal.com> <1990Oct30.210852.15087@mozart.amd.com> <8527@scolex.sco.COM> <1990Nov7.184237.22840@mozart.amd.com> <2857@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: gauss.llnl.gov

| From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
| 
| | I don't.  And, I own and use PC's.  Probably, many of you on the net paid
| | about $800 more for your 386-unix PC than you would have if Intel had
| | honored its deal.
| 
|   Since the retail cost of the CPU is less than $800 I would really like
| to know how you come up with that number. Particularly since *my* cost is
| < $800, and no matter what Intel charges the distributor and retail
| vendor would still mark it up, as a chip or in a system.

  It's common to see manufacturing cost increases scale by three to six
into retail price increase.  Thus if something costs a manufacturer $100
they might pass that on in the retail price as $300 to $600.

| Since it seems AMD didn't deliver their part of the technology swap (this
| part didn't make as many headlines), AMD can't claim to be without fault
| in this case.

  What part was that?  (Sincere curiousity.  I'm just watching.)

Casey