home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / misc / invest / 15237 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-12-22  |  965 b   |  21 lines
  1. Newsgroups: misc.invest
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!unogate!stgprao
  3. From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
  4. Subject: Re: AMD - what's your opinion?
  5. Message-ID: <1992Dec22.000628.23020@unocal.com>
  6. Sender: news@unocal.com (Unocal USENET News)
  7. Organization: Unocal Corporation
  8. References: <1992Dec21.184619.18145@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> <69i6VB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca>
  9. Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:06:28 GMT
  10. Lines: 9
  11.  
  12. In article <69i6VB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca> pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky) writes:
  13. >My understanding of AMD's legal woes is that they were prevented
  14. >from using Intel's microcode in their (AMD's) next generation of
  15. >Intel-clone microprocessors. More specifically, their next generation
  16. >is to be a 486-clone so that product has been pushed out until next
  17. >spring/summer. 
  18.  
  19. IF it has to run identical micro-code, it sounds more like a reversed
  20. engineered "copy" than an emulation.  LAZY.
  21.