Good catch, Alexander. IMO, it was not a misspelling. He did it every time though it is difficult to type the first 2 letters in caps and the rest in lower case. Obviously, it has some meaning for him and for robotrader_3000...you know they are different people, don't you :)
I do see some similarity between getanid and warreneast as well. Guess whatever gives them the kicks....
BTW, by slashing prices on full Windows 8.1 x86 Tablets, Microsoft could be the providing the clearest indication that it will pull back on RT.
All this is good for Intel. Nexus 8 on Bay Trail will be icing on the cake!
Microsoft slashes prices on Windows 8.1 tablets, achieves near-parity with Android devices
We’ve known since IDF that Intel intended to put pressure behind Bay Trail’s sales volume by aggressively positioning the tablets across both Windows 8.1 and Android, but it seems Microsoft doesn’t want to be left behind — or undercut. The company has made significant slashes to prices on multiple devices in the Microsoft Store — the 32GB Dell Venue Pro has dropped from $299 to $229, while the 32GB Lenovo Miix 2 and Toshiba Encore (also 32GB tablets) have fallen to $249, from $299.
Dropping the Venue Pro to $229 actually puts Microsoft in the unusual position of going head-to-head against the $229 Google Nexus 7 (2013), but offering twice the storage (32GB versus 16GB). While Windows 8 has been roundly chewed up for offering far less than maximum capacity once the OS and restore files are accounted for, the 32GB Dell Venue 8 will still have 4-6GB more practical storage available than the Nexus 7 device.
The tablets themselves are powered by the Intel Bay Trail Z3740D, the same chip inside the Asus TransformerBook T100.
Whether this will finally spark adoption of x86 and Windows devices in the tablet space is an open question, but I think the path is clearer for Intel than Microsoft. If Intel can build equal-players for both products, OEMs will adopt a certain volume of x86 hardware, and customers who see equivalent battery life and performance won’t necessarily care either way.
But Bay Trail really is a much better tablet chip than what we’ve seen in previous generations
Mas: Appreciate your update. Unequal treatment (seemingly or real) is a hot button issue for me, I absolutely lose it when I see something like that happen. I take back any harsh language posted in the heat of the moment with apologies, and hope everyone else can do the same.
bb: Guess you're right. That does explain why Mas and his rather servile protege Ashraf have seen it fit to apply their TOU very selectively. And man, Mas comes across as stuffed-up, pretentious buffxxn.
As I said, you get an F as a moderator. And you proved me right!
Mas: All you needed to do as a moderator was write the first couple of sentences of the above post as a response at iHub.
You not only failed to do that, you removed my posts for asking you to apply the ToS across the board without fear or favor.
I'm not sure who you refer to as the trio of Yahoo posters. If one of them is me, then sadly, you're not only wrong - you're intentionally mis-representing the facts. I have never crossed the line in my postings both at Yahoo and iHub. In fact, I have intervened several times on people both sides to keep the discussions civil.
You're pretty good as a poster and I have always read your comments with interest. But, you as a moderator, you don't make the passing grade - in fact, I have to give you an F!
Ashraf, I hope you are not able to delete any of your posts on Yahoo and particularly this thread. I think this could be a fairly valuable learning experience to anyone who likes to understand how authority even in an inconsequential bulletin board setting can get to the head!
And why is it a TOU violation?
Is it a personal attack - No
Is it using bad language - No
Is it off-topic - No. I don't think holding the moderators feet to the fire is off-topic!
And "hypocrites like you..." is not insulting?
Ashraf, you are a writer and a pretty good one at that - so you should be able to recognize a personal attack when you see one.
Stand your ground, act with moral authority across the board - don't weasel out saying you didn't want to overstep your authority.
As I explained below, this is about the moderators and their selective actions, not Chipguy. I am okay if his post is not deleted.
Ever wonder why dictators like Kim Jong-Un get away with things? Because they say "off with their heads" when someone dares to question them. Power corrupts...
Okay then, please explain how Chipguy can specifically tell another poster "...hypocrites like you" and his post still stands? And, why have my posts been deleted simply for holding your (moderators) feet to the fire?
Let me clarify that my comment is not about Chipguy - it's about showing a mirror to your arbitrary actions. I absolutely don't mind if Chipguy's post is not deleted - it is a bit extreme, but that's okay.
In summary, my comments above still stand - and applies to ALL iHub moderators.
I had posted twice on iHub Intel board (yesterday and this morning) and challenged the moderators, and particularly Ashraf Eassa, to review Chipguy's post # 128793 where he specifically called other posters "...hypocrites like you".
Posts by WW and Flumoxed were earlier deleted for lesser "personal attacks".
Just now, I found that BOTH my posts (asking moderators to take action) have been deleted on iHub. Crucifying the messenger and not being able to critically look at your own actions is pretty pathetic.
My record in terms of being supportive to Ashraf and other posters has been pretty consistent - that they should have their say. Given this background, if my posts were removed by Ashraf, I am absolutely flabbergasted by his actions and see some clear moral deficiency.
That's good to know. Based on Morris Chang's statements in 2012, I have always held the view that TSMC is not going to get to FINFETs and 20nm (let alone 16nm) in a hurry.
From Intel's side, based on what has been said at the Investors Meeting and since that 14nm production will start this quarter, can we heave a sigh of relief that Intel has 14nm under control (contrary to what murphydunnit says above: "....Intel is at a brick wall with 14nm FinFET")?
Or, are there still any doubts out there regarding Intel's 14nm capabilities, yield, etc?
Dan: Since you seem to have access to yield information at Intel, you should have more details for the same at your client TSMC. Pray enlighten us with precise information of manufacturing volumes, products being shipped, and yield at TSMC for both 28nm and 20nm.
It is a simple 4x3 matrix, with one row and one column taken for headings. Should be very easy for an industry expert like yourself, no?
Intel should have used sock puppets to convey the information for some of the analysts....
Guess Penn's observations today meshes well with Russ' article of Oct 2012!
My question is - why didn't Intel management come out and categorically say that they are seeing better 14nm yields than anticipated during the earnings call? It would have pleased conservative investors to learn that Intel had made a very pragmatic investment to create sufficient capacity and would have also laid to rest the negative concerns of Fab 42 being mothballed.
No wonder. You seem to take everything and come to the same conclusion. In that case, you shouldn't read too much - it may make your head hurt :)