intel/big scam : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Intel rep says no problem. My brother-in-law recently retired from 25-30 yrs with Intel in top level management. I contacted him recently about the y2k problem and will question him in depth over Christmas. He says it(y2k) is just a bunch of nonsense. I don't know what to make of his response. I would think someone in his position with a computer giant like Intel would know what he's talking about. When I meet with him over Christmas, what kind of stuff should I ask him or say to him? I read on this forum info from people supposedly in the know and then I hear from my close relative, who I have no reason to doubt, conflicting statements. How do I know what to believe? Johan

-- johan (, November 16, 1998


Johan, as a thought, see my post Off The Record, Y2K & Silicon Valley under Awareness/general Threads. My neighbor works for a large High-tech company.

-- Diane J. Squire (, November 16, 1998.

You could ask him to explain Canada's plans,and the above post Power:Alliant acknowledges potential (thanks Arnie )

-- Arthur Rambo (, November 16, 1998.

And you know, this is what has got to be the most fascinating part of the Y2K problem. People who otherwise sure ought to "get it", don't. Then you have people who don't really know much about the technical aspects "get it" immediately, once they realize the sheer size and scope of the thing. Regardless of what else you do, be sure and ask the following: If you take steps to prepare, and Y2K turns out to be nothing, you have lost very little; but if you do not prepare, and Y2K turns out to be one-tenth of what is claimed that it could be, is that a chance that you really want to take?

-- Jack (, November 16, 1998.

Ahh, the famous brother-in-law that works for (fill in the blank) ploy.

Johan, Have your "brother-in-law" read his companies latest 10Q dated 11/11/98. Here are some excerpts to prove "its a bunch of nonsense".

====== The Company currently expects that the total cost of these programs, including both incremental spending and redeployed resources, will not exceed $250 million. Approximately $35 million has been spent on the programs to date, of which approximately $30 million was incurred in the first three quarters of 1998. Costs in the fourth quarter of 1998 are expected to be approximately $30 million. A majority of the total estimated costs are expected to be incurred in assessing and remediating issues with manufacturing systems, and as a result, a majority of the total costs are expected to be included in cost of sales and in the calculation of gross margin. ====

Interesting, they PLAN to spend up to $250 million. They HAVE spent $35 million of which $30 million was in 1998! Gee, they got an early start wouldn't you say? So that means they PLAN to spend (give or take) $200 million in 1999 on this "nonsense". Now lets take a look at their time line. ===== "The table below indicates the phases of the year 2000 project related to the Company's critical and priority internal systems and the expected time frames."

Phases of the Project Start Date End Date

- --------------------- ---------- --------

High level assessment of systems 1996 Q3 1998 (actual)

Detailed assessment, remediation and unit testing 1996 Q1 1999 (expected)

Deployment 1997 Mid-1999 (expected)

Integration testing Q3 1998 Mid-1999 (expected) ============

Now notice they say they were doing some of the above in 1996, but they have already told you the bulk (85%) of the money was spent in 1998. They plan to be done mid-99, although that means spending 6 times more money than they have spent to date.

Now, how worried are they? lets see a few more tidbits. ============== " All Intel processors are "Year 2000 Capable." All Intel microcontrollers (embedded processors) are also "Year 2000 Capable," with the exception of two custom microcontroller products which were sold to a limited number of customers. However, the assessment of whether a complete system will operate correctly depends on the firmware (BIOS) capability and software design and integration, and for many end-users this will include firmware and software provided by companies other than Intel." ========== I find it significant that someone in Intel needed to mention BIOS in a 10Q report. Could they be just a tad worried about TD being more than an academic curiosity? It certainly tries to shift blame elsewhere. Try the following quote. === "Except as specifically provided for in the Limited Warranty, the Company does not believe it is legally responsible for costs incurred by customers related to ensuring their year 2000 capability." ==================

In summary, Intel finds Y2K to be a very big deal indeed. I doubt the management would look kindly on a management type calling it "nonsense" when they are spending in the 9 digit range for in company remediation and face external legal issues in the 10 digit range.

-- R. D..Herring (, November 16, 1998.

There are many reasons why Intel is in difficulty and the only reasons they are still viable are market share and Microsoft. After all, they're chips are too large, too costly, run too hot, use too much power and they are out of step with current technology. Add to this the fact that their future chips are behind schedule and burdened by needing to work with older programs and operating systems. Of course, then there is the fact that their new chips like the Merced are years behind schedule and it is a miracle they're still around.

Johan, your brother in law works for a company that has been snowballing out of control for a long while under the weight of it's own's no wonder he can't see y2k, he's got that bunny suit on and the heat is fogging up his helmet.

IBM, Motorola...PowerPC. The G4 is around the corner, copper based, smaller, faster and cheaper. I've seen the future and it is based on technology other than that provided by Intel.

Tell your brother in law to "think different", and think differe

-- Out There (, November 16, 1998.


R. D. Herring's answer pretty much says it all. The only thing I can add is that only a person who remediates Y2K for a living, or who is willing to spend an hour on the internet each day reading news and magazine articles on Y2K is likely to "get it." Most people don't understand the interconnectedness of the problem, and what will happen to the U.S. because of foreign countries being even further behind on this than we are.

-- Kevin (, November 16, 1998.

Take some advice from Jim Lord at Westergaard:

"How to Deal With Y2K Non-Believers"

Don't try to pick green tomatoes!

-- Guy (, November 17, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ