Best practice would have been to offer a solution for people, us consumers, that offers a set of patches that closes all security holes and fixes the issues. "Best practice" in this case means, best case for the company, not the consumer. They did what they had to do (and were ready with their aimed at time to release the microcode fixes), but they had half a year and the mainboard vendors did not do or get anything. All they have to do is compile BIOS files and offer them on their homepages. As Intel knew about that half a year already, as well as some others say that AMD did as well, it's actually quite a shame that a bug that could be potentially destructive and performance degrading to virtually every known and used (Intel) machine does not get treated with zero day patches. Yes, the two of us seem to see different things as "best practice". What's the reason they did not talk to any of the mainboard manufacturers or Microsoft for half a year to let them know that they have issues and they need to fix and test things, as well as implement them? Is there no way they could have put in some extra hours and delivered the microcode updates to the vendors a week before disclosure so that we could have a chance to not even be in the situation to be vulvernable after disclosure? Oddly convenient that their CEO could sell some of their shares at their higher price before it drops in conjunction with Meltdown / Spectre vulnerabilities. Oh yes, "best practice". Best practice in my opinion would be, if my product is faulty (which the CPUs are), it should be the companies responsibility to do what they can to offer a sollution as fast as they can. And I personally did not see that happening here with 6 months of virtually doing nothing besides trying to get around lawsuits (I guess they were trying to work around Meltdown performance decreases to not have so many people sue them in the company's best interest. Interestingly google accomplished to work around the performance decrease two weeks after disclosure for their workstation and servers, and we guys neither get updated BIOSs or flawless OS patches.) Oh and by the way, I do understand what you are trying to say, but thanks for your patronizing matter to talk to people. I guess you are generally successful with such a way of talking to others. Welcome to the fabulous ignore list of fantaskarsef, where people like you seem to be well taken care of. Free lodging, reduced rates on drinks and food. Because that's "best practice" to handle downtalking people like you who think a different opinion means that people are stupid and don't understand.
I think you are exaggerating people liking that AMD supports open source, has developed new more powerful rendering API's and not kept them proprietary, and offers better value than what Intel's greed has given us to "people are claiming blah blah blah". If you want to you can enjoy the 40% reduction in Intel CPU's, and if you're real lucky AMD can get back in the GPU race so you won't have to spend $3000 for a top of the line video card. If cheering for that to happen is somehow worship to you all I can say is you are severely lacking in vision.
Are you seriously surprised Intel is being assumed guilty every time they're accused of something? Need I remind you the crap they've pulled over the years? You remember when they paid OEMs to keep using Pentium 4 processors in their machines, even though AMD had a better product in just about every aspect? Their latest crap being how their CEO 'coincidentally' sold a large amount of shares right before news of Meltdown became public? People aren't shilling for AMD, they're simply against Intel. Look I've been an Intel user all my life before this Ryzen, when I saw the fact that the 1700X offers more of what I want compared to a 6700k you can bet your ass I jumped ship. I won't go out of my way just to buy AMD hardware; if Intel has a better offer I'll go with them but I'll avoid them when I can. I kept my 2600k for almost 7 years because there was no reason to upgrade. Once Ryzen starting rolling over Intel, surprise-surprise we now have 6-core i7s and i5s. Come on, that's procreating blatant. Yes, there's a general anti-Intel sentiment on this forum but it's not only here. You can even see this same sentiment even on the Intel subreddit lol. And that in itself means something, it means people are just sick of taking crap.
I don't think anyone genuinely likes Intel, well I've never met anyone anyway. In my experience the hardcore Intel fans tend to have the same attitude as hardcore PC fans in that anyone not using what they use is a peasant. I've been buying based on price/performance for over a decade now, so tend to think the elitist attitude is stupid. AMD being the good guys is nonsense though, these days I'm sure their marketing guys even milk the hell out of that view. Is this thread even about whether people like or hate Intel though, is it not about AMD being sued for misleading investors and losing them money?? Edit: Actually it might not even be about that, just noticed the link in the main article has been taken down, and while i am at work i'm still surprised Google now brings up nothing about this story......
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. These are assumptions, not evidence. The amount of stock he sold is consistent with other years and was planned out months in advance (it takes a long time to sell that much stock properly). There is no proof that this had anything to do with these bugs yet everyone online ASSUMES it must because they KNOW that Intel is evil. So anything bad about them must be true. Could this turn out to be true? It's possible but why treat it as a fact before learning the evidence? The same with the 4 core argument. It's possible but there is no evidence to support it. But people assume it's true because...it's Intel. Even though this architecture was planned out 5 years in advance. Even though people don't have to buy new cpus and would have no reason to if new cpus weren't any faster or more efficient. Even though Intel's "pathetic" 10% per year improvements are consistent with the rest of the Industry (IBM, qualcomm, etc.) and consistent with AMD (10% per year for Intel or 60% after 5 years for AMD work out to be the same if you do the math). So saying "history has already proven it" makes no sense when there are plenty of arguments to make against it that are consistent with history. This is what I'm talking about. If the subject is Intel positive news is assumed false and negative news is assumed true before evidence comes out. If the subject is AMD positive news is assumed true and negative news is assumed false before evidence comes out. It's cyclical logic. People assume negative articles posted about Intel are true because they know Intel is evil. And they know Intel is evil because people post negative articles that they assume to be true. And thus the cycle continues unabated by lack of evidence. Surely you understand that this type of logic is grasping at straws at best right? People that use this logic are desperately looking for an excuse to blame Intel for everything. There is simply no other explanation as to why they would resort to these types of assumptions.
Not surprised that AMD is getting sued since Intel is it was only a matter of time before they got it. I take it that Americans are stupid but not all of them are.
I'm sorry, your post made sense right up until you said there's no evidence to support my 4 core argument; you proceeded to spout absolute nonsense afterwards, no offense. It's absolutely obvious they they weren't interested in giving consumers what they want and tried milking the living crap out of their i7-Extreme line. People have been moaning about wanting 6-core mainstream processors ever since before Skylake and Intel has given us the finger. Look at what Intel has done in 7 years' time: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-2600k-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k Then look again what they did in half a year: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-intel-core-i7-8700k You think Intel randomly started pumping up core numbers just because they love their customers, while coincidentally Ryzen was starting to poop all over their lineup? Good lord man, think. What was planned 5 years in advance? That argument has no substance, unless Intel came to you in 2012 and told you 'dude, in 2017 we will have Coffee Lake, with mainstream 6-core i7 processors'. Because I for sure don't remember any Intel slides back from 2012 saying anything about 6-core Coffee Lakes. In fact, I think we barely even had Skylake info in 2012. Coffee Lake was also so obviously rushed it's not even funny, the stock was 0 in stores for months. It was another of Intel's classic panicked moves, just like the insulting i9 line of processors. But lemme guess, you're gonna defend the i9 line as well right? You've made it very obvious that you're defying logic in order to fiercely defend Intel in a very fanboyitic manner. It's time to stop doing it because you're not making any sense. People are biased against Intel, with good reason. Deal with it.
we should sue amd for not making a good competitive cpu for 10 years thus giving intel the monopoly that made us biased against them.
Very few people are actually biased against Intel, it's just the usual case of the vocal minority. The majority is made up of people who either like them, or don't care enough about what they do for it to stop them buying Intel products. So....are AMD being sued or what??
He made the schedule well after learning about the bugs. The bugs were reported to the affected parties a long time ago, after all, not mere months but half a year. According to the man it's "unrelated". Sure.
Now APPLE is getting sued over the same thing https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/18/apple_spectre_class_action_lawsuit/ You are quite naive if you think disclosing exploit information to shareholders, let alone the public at large, before security countermeasures are in place is a good idea. You've clearly not paid attention the last time someone tried that and a bona fide "arms-race" of malware spread like wildfire. Everything else you've said is clearly untrue and misinformed, that or very filtered your selective retention, as has already explained repeatedly how this situation was handled, with the time-line of events is quite easily followed. Software development is not simple, security software even less so, and firmware development takes a special breed and firmware security is even tougher. You seem to be under the impression that security fixes for these kinds of things is something anyone can whip-up at the snap of their fingers, ignoring the hard working people behind the efforts to discover these issues, let alone the hundreds more involved in fixing them. These things take some time to develop, and in this situation AMD and Intel have handled the security aspects of these exploits very well, with no widespread damage to the industry at large and getting the fixes out in a timely fashion, all the while keeping key information about these issues from being abused by malware authors. Why you seem to insist on turning this discussion into a personal attack is beyond me, but I suspect heraldry fealty may be in play. Don't get personal and use cynical detachment, for perspective.
I don't see how anyone can get sued unless something bad actually happens. Remember the millennium bug. well nothing happened then. I do not recall any litigation.
Nothing will happen as none of these 'vulnerabilities' were taken advantage of in the past. Just like those two dumbasses suing apple and everyone else; apple and others patched the issues already. There has not been a single exploit of those vulnerabilities hence those two will get nowhere. Just fools trying to get free money at this point.
just cause it patched dont mean everyone actual patched it though, I know alot people that DONT do updates on there iPhone and Andriod phones. at this point this whole mess has becoming joke cause of how its been handled
Feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily be a coincidence and you know it. Of course they don't release every detail of every architecture change 5 years in advance. But then again that's not what I said now is it. I said that they begin planning them 5 years in advance, which is true for almost all microprocessor chip makers. In fact they couldn't give you the details that far in advance even if they wanted to because the design is in a constant state of flux through the first few years of the dev cycle. They definitely rushed the release but I have my doubts that they suddenly changed the design to boost core count at the last second because quite frankly they can't. It takes years to do a redesign like that and go through the verification process all over again. They might have made that change a few years back but even if that is your claim (and it doesn't appear to be) you have no way to know. And pretending you do know is a falsehood at best. He sold more stock the year before, were those also based on these findings? Again feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily have been a coincidence, neither of us knows. Stop pretending you know for sure. My core point that I'm trying to make is that assumptions are bad, period. I don't care what side of what anyone is on. But I do care about people making claims without evidence, regardless of what they're discussing.
It doesn't matter if anything bad happens, the fact the vulnerability even exists will lose people money. This thread seems overly focused on the vulnerabilities and not the point of the actual lawsuit. The one against Apple seems different though, at a glance that looks like a consumer lawsuit.
That doesn't mean anything. How about not selling the stocks until the bugs were made public? You'd think a man making dozens of millions of dollars a year could, perhaps, realise such a simple thing. I mean, he's supposed to be a pro businessman. He sold every single stock he could without breaking his agreement (since as a CEO he needs to possess a certain amount of them). He followed his yearly practice to the max because he didn't care. Intel doesn't care. Intel CEO doesn't care. Intel's slogan is: "We want your money, we don't care about anything else." Intel's core architecture hasn't really changed for years. They have also been making the expensive extreme versions with higher core counts, so such aren't foreign to them. I've said it before, but they likely had some preliminary plans ready for a mainstream 6-core a long, long time ago, possibly making ready to update them to the new usb, sata, lolptane, whatever. All this for the off chance AMD could surprise them. When AMD was about to release Ryzen, the Intel spokesman told the press that Intel is not worried, they have perfect trust in their existing line (Kaby) being able to compete with Ryzen. In the same year they had another generation, Coffee, out with an incompatible chipset. Perfect trust in Kaby, indeed.
