3 ms·

Yeah, because all they have to do is just tweak some code and re-release... /s It takes 2 - 4 years to design a chip. If Intel doesn't release the new chip th

Yeah, because all they have to do is just tweak some code and re-release... /s It takes 2 - 4 years to design a chip. If Intel doesn't release the new chip they started designing 2 - 4 years ago, they waste that development cost, fall behind AMD, and you complain that they are behind the times. If they do release the chip you complain they haven't fixed the bug you just learned about a week ago. It took a year for everyone to fix their software, and you want Intel to magically come out with new hardware? Sheesh. I think all the "Intel sucks" comments should have a disclaimer "Full disclosure: I've never designed hardware in my life, I have no idea how to run a business, I really just hate Intel and this is an excuse to vent my hatred."

dna_polymerase 9y ago
Nope. This bug is far from new. Intel knew about this since 2012 [0]. I don't expect them to release a fix within a year or something. I know that CPU design is far from easy or doable within weeks. But how they handled the whole matter shows that they don't care. Intel sucks, that's true. They should admit that they produced shit and start talking to their customers and show that they care. Oh and also, who in their right mind would buy a CPU with those bugs? [0]: https://twitter.com/TheSimha/status/949361495468642304 https://twitter.com/TheSimha/status/949361495468642304
- whywhywhywhy 9y ago
  >They should admit that they produced shit and start talking to their customers and show that they care. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't almost every modern CPU vulnerable in some way with Spectre? If so isn't every modern CPU manufacturer "producing shit" in your eyes?
  - dna_polymerase 9y ago
    Most modern AMD CPUs are not vulnerable or at least not to the full extent, so no not all CPU manufacturers are producing shit.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
bartread 9y ago
A valid perspective, although I'm not going to lie: I don't particularly appreciate the extra (non-value-adding) work that's been dumped into my team's backlog in terms of figuring out and implementing mitigations, ahead of applying patches, when we already have a dozen projects on the go, with about half of them scheduled to deliver in the next couple of months. _Thankfully_ we're running non-virtualised on dedicated hardware, due to performance and cost considerations, so the risks are somewhat reduced for us. I also admit to taking a fairly dim view of Intel's PR around the issues, and the suspicion that Meltdown, in particular, exists because they - specifically - have played it a bit fast and loose with their processor designs in order to gain a performance edge, and perhaps to a greater extent than AMD and ARM. Granted, this will take years for a final resolution in hardware though.

dna_polymerase 9y ago

Nope. This bug is far from new. Intel knew about this since 2012 [0]. I don't expect them to release a fix within a year or something. I know that CPU design is far from easy or doable within weeks. But how they handled the whole matter shows that they don't care. Intel sucks, that's true. They should admit that they produced shit and start talking to their customers and show that they care. Oh and also, who in their right mind would buy a CPU with those bugs? [0]: https://twitter.com/TheSimha/status/949361495468642304 https://twitter.com/TheSimha/status/949361495468642304

whywhywhywhy 9y ago
>They should admit that they produced shit and start talking to their customers and show that they care. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't almost every modern CPU vulnerable in some way with Spectre? If so isn't every modern CPU manufacturer "producing shit" in your eyes?
- dna_polymerase 9y ago
  Most modern AMD CPUs are not vulnerable or at least not to the full extent, so no not all CPU manufacturers are producing shit.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

bartread 9y ago

A valid perspective, although I'm not going to lie: I don't particularly appreciate the extra (non-value-adding) work that's been dumped into my team's backlog in terms of figuring out and implementing mitigations, ahead of applying patches, when we already have a dozen projects on the go, with about half of them scheduled to deliver in the next couple of months. _Thankfully_ we're running non-virtualised on dedicated hardware, due to performance and cost considerations, so the risks are somewhat reduced for us. I also admit to taking a fairly dim view of Intel's PR around the issues, and the suspicion that Meltdown, in particular, exists because they - specifically - have played it a bit fast and loose with their processor designs in order to gain a performance edge, and perhaps to a greater extent than AMD and ARM. Granted, this will take years for a final resolution in hardware though.