Serious Intel CPU bugs (2016)

Post by mehrdadn » Wed, Jan 03, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

m_eiman wrote: post #25

mehrdadn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting this! It seems self-contradictory to me. How can Intel warrant that > the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications while simultaneously disclaiming warranty for > design defects or errors in the Product (Errata) ? If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their s…

What they're saying is that they'll replace your chip if it behaves differently from all the other chips of the same model, not if ALL the chips are broken by design.

Post by mehrdadn » Wed, Jan 03, 2018, 10:19 AM UTC

ta_wh wrote: post #18

mehrdadn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting this! It seems self-contradictory to me. How can Intel warrant that > the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications while simultaneously disclaiming warranty for > design defects or errors in the Product (Errata) ? If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their s…

I'm no lawyer, but my instincts tell me someone would have to prove that the chips today do not conform to Intel's specs, and that this difference is such that the CPU no longer "substantially conforms" to the spec. > If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs? We're on the same page. What do you think Intel…

Post by kuschku » Wed, Jan 03, 2018, 10:21 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #30

kuschku wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under EU law (this is not legal advice), any bug that wasn't known to you at time of sale, but was present at time of sale, has to be fixed by the vendor. For 2 years after sale usually, some countries have longer (afaik, Norway for example has it set at 5 years. As EEA member, they also follow the EU laws on warranty).

> Under EU law (this is not legal advice), any bug that wasn't known to you at time of sale, but was present at time of sale, has to be fixed by the vendor. Is this true for software as well?

Post by p0nce » Wed, Jan 03, 2018, 10:23 AM UTC

friedButter wrote: post #6

bwang29 wrote: post #3

Quote from article "We need to move faster. Validation at Intel is taking much longer than it does for our competition. We need to do whatever we can to reduce those times… we can’t live forever in the shadow of the early 90’s FDIV bug, we need to move on. Our competition is moving much faster than we are". Competition pressure could make a company's new product worse than (in this case, less stable than) their previ…

> Competition pressure could make a company's new product worse than (in this case, less stable than) their previous products Well, that depends on the specific attributes on which there is competitive pressure. When its on time to market, yes, quality will suffer. When its on quality, products will be slower\more expensive,etc. Kind of similar to the often repeated quality triangle in Software dev

Post by drej » Wed, Jan 03, 2018, 10:35 AM UTC