There are quite a few unanswered questions lingering around:
- Why was the testing only commenced 5 days ago and not right after my initial article on July 31? Couldn't that have saved Intel a major part of the face loss it's encountering now?
- Why was I never equipped with another Pentium III 1.13 GHz sample to verify my findings?
- Why did Intel neither try to send an engineer over to my lab nor ask me to fly over to San Jose, which is right around the corner from Santa Clara? We've got another lab there. That could have saved valuable time and kept a few thousand end users from buying a system they now have to return.
- Why was Kyle only visited by a guy who 'happened to be in the area'? Does that mean that the whole situation would have been delayed even further if 'Gary' had not been around Dallas, TX?
- Why did Intel not contact me after the testing session in Kyle Bennett's lab, although I supplied not only my sample but also the Linux software that turned out to be the final piece of the puzzle?
- Why was the Pentium 4 information deliberately kept from us a week ago?
- Why was Intel's in-house validation team unable to find the flaws of the 1.13 GHz Pentium III in the first place?
- What will Intel do to ensure that its next processor release will actually work as expected?
- Is it indeed true that Intel suddenly found an issue with the 1.13 GHz Pentium III last weekend, or couldn't it be that Intel was aware of design flaws for much longer? After all there was a big PR-meeting last weekend. It seems as if the decision for the retraction was made then, but that the testing had nothing to do with it. What is Intel trying to cover up here?
I suppose we will never get the answers to these questions. I am particularly puzzled with the last question.