Recourse for Intel i820 + MTH Users

[mthuser]

If you bought a car and it turned out to have a defective engine, and the car company offered to either replace the whole car with a new car running on Diesel fuel or to give you a refund for the engine but not the rest of the car, what would you think? That's in effect what Intel did to users of motherboards based on the i820 chipset with the defective MTH component. The options offered by Intel force users to either switch to RDRAM or purchase new processors at their own expense. See www.intelclassaction.org for more information.

It's possible that a class action suit will be filed on behalf of affected users. An attorney has been found who is interested in this case, and he has asked how many users have probably already accepted one of Intel's two options and whether Intel required them to sign any paperwork as a condition of receiving the replacement or refund. If you owned or still own an affected motherboard, please reply to info@intelclassaction.org. Also, if Intel requested that you sign any agreement in connection with this problem, please let us know. A scanned copy would be even more helpful. Hopefully we can get Intel to take full responsibility for its mistakes and provide adequate compensation to all users.

 

[AndyHui]

Erm....excuse me?

Intel not only replaced the Cape Cod CC820 motherboard with the Vancouver VC820, but they ALSO sent you 128MB RDRAM, FREE, to replace the SDRAM used in the old board.

Purchase new processors? Where did this come from?

I see NO reason for this class action.

 

[mthuser]

What about users wanting more than 128 MB of memory? They had to buy proprietary RDRAM at three times the price of standard, inexpensive SDRAM. Also, RDRAM has high latency and produces too much heat, and some people just don't want to support Rambus due to their detrimental actions in the marketplace. Users who purchased the CC820 motherboards were paying for the opportunity to choose their memory type, and Intel decided to retroactively take away that choice. I did offer to accept an i815 based motherboard with a replacement socket 370 processor instead of a VC820 motherboard with replacement memory, which would have been much cheaper for Intel since the cost of 128 MB of RDRAM was much higher than the cost of a processor, but they refused. Why would they do that unless they were trying to turn their engineering mistake into an opportunity to push RDRAM, even at the cost of giving it away? I also offered to accept a refund for both the motherboard and the processor I never would have purchased had I not purchased the motherboard, but again Intel refused. Had I accepted Intel's alternative of a refund for the motherboard only, I would not have been able to purchase a new Slot 1 motherboard because the CC820 was the last Slot 1 motherboard Intel made. I would therefore have had to purchase a new Socket 370 processor from Intel, at my own expense. I do regret having to pursue a legal action, but I tried repeatedly to resolve the problem through non-litigious means and Intel simply stonewalled and told me that if I didn't like the choices they were offering it was my problem. Hopefully it will be possible to get Intel to provide additional options to affected users, and hopefully they will take better care of their customers in the future.

 

[AndyHui]

So you simply had to buy a new processor. You could have simply sold the old one to someone else, and then minimised any loss.

How much is it costing you to clog up the legal system with this sort of whining?

 

[DaveSimmons]

So you (mthuser) set up your AT account today just to troll for "victims" for your class action? Are you perchance connected with this attorney?

Hopefully the mods will notice this and lock/delete the thread.

The mods have noticed this thread and are watching it with interest.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[mthuser]

I understand people's dislike of litigation, but unfortunately it's the way we have in our society for resolving some types of disputes in which a powerful entity has no other reason to take responsibility for its actions. It's not a perfect system, but if nobody ever used it we would have more problems and not less. How much did it cost us all that Rambus tried to monopolize the memory market and that Intel decided to back them? I'm just a user who saved up to buy equipment and did a lot of research before deciding what to buy, with the goal of avoiding RDRAM for reasons of cost, performance, and principle. Then Intel turned around and offered me RDRAM as if there was no reason I shouldn't want it, and told me that if I didn't want it I was out of luck. I offered them very reasonable alternatives that would have been less expensive for them than the alternatives they were offering, but they refused. Intel made a bad decision in backing Rambus, and they should pay for it, not me and other customers. If the case goes forward and Intel is held liable, next time they will know that they will have to take responsibility for their own decisions and maybe they will think twice before backing the next Rambus. If not, they will just do the same thing next time, and we will all pay for it again. So, whether you agree that a class action is justified or not, don't accuse me of selfish motives. I'm not connected with the attorney and I have nothing to gain other than just compensation and the knowledge that companies like Intel will have a reason to behave more responsibly.

 

[AndyHui]

avoiding RDRAM for reasons of cost, performance, and principle

Cost? Intel gave you 128MB of RDRAM. You could have sold off the VC820+128MB RDRAM and made a killing...buy an i815E board and more than 256MB of SDRAM, and STILL have money left over.

Performance? RDRAM has the same performance as SDRAM on a Pentium III platform.

Principle? What problem do you have with using RDRAM?

Intel made a bad decision backing RAMBUS? The Pentium 4 wouldn't be where it is today if Intel hadn't backed RAMBUS.

If Intel was irresponsible, they would have said "tough luck", and do NOTHING about the MTH issue. As it is, they offered an exchange program, and a very generous one in my opinion.

With a bit of clear thinking, you could have taken real advantage of the exchange situation at the time, rather than run off to a lawyer 3 years later with the hope of making big money.

 

[mthuser]

Actually, no I couldn't have sold a VC820 + 128 MB RDRAM. Just because the retail price of that equipment was high, doesn't mean the resale price was. I checked eBay at the time and VC820 + 128 MB of RDRAM was selling for around $100. Apparently, nobody else wanted it either. I have no idea who was paying retail price at the time, maybe OEMs or businesses who needed to buy new.

As for performance, the following articles from Tom's Hardware Guide documented the flaws in RDRAM. Interestingly, they have been removed from THG and from Google and Archive.org. However, the last one is mirrored elsewhere.

Dissecting Rambus from Tom's Hardware Guide (March 15, 2000)
http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q1/000315/

Rambus Requiem - RDRAM Fails Bandwidth Tests from Tom's Hardware Guide (May 29, 2000)
http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q2/000529/

The Rambus Zombie Versus the Wounded Chipzilla from Tom's Hardware Guide (July 19. 2000)
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000719/
Mirrored at http://zquake.frag.ru/vansmiths/zombie.htm

As for principle, see this article from Tom's Hardware Guide, which is still there.
Why We Don't Trust Rambus - Pointing Out Facts, Turning Rumors Into Reality from Tom's Hardware Guide (May 25, 2000)
http://www.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q2/000525/

Not to mention this article, questioning whether RDRAM will even be around much longer
Gartner jumps on 'RDRAM dead' bandwagon from The Register (November 9, 2000)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14572.html

And many others linked to at www.intelclassaction.org.

Why are you are so eager to defend Intel and Rambus?

 

[AndyHui]

All of those articles are over 2 years old now. None of them apply to present day RAMBUS. Separate RAMBUS the company from RDRAM the technology. RAMBUS has done some questionable things, there is no doubt about that, but RDRAM is an excellent technology.

RDRAM performance is unbeaten on the Pentium 4. There is NO question about this.

An article from Van Smith? A known rabid Intel hater and basher? Hard to give that article credibility.

Gartner jumps on 'RDRAM dead' bandwagon from The Register (November 9, 2000)

It's the middle of 2002. RAMBUS is still here, and still going strong.

I disagree on the prices that you give from E-Bay. I clearly remember that selling the VC820+RDRAM combination was extremely popular here on the forums.

 

[oldfart]

Hmmm. I thought Intel did the right thing by owning up to the problem, and replacing mobos or giving out what was then very expensive RDRAM. There are other mfgrs out there that have serious hardware flaws that just put out an endless stream of bug patches rather than admit a problem and replace bad hardware.

So you (mthuser) set up your AT account today just to troll for "victims" for your class action? Are you perchance connected with this attorney?

Hit it square on the head.

 

[FishTankX]

MTHUSER, I do think your opinion, while you are entitled to it, is wrong. Intel, atleast, over here (In china) ... replaced i820 boards with an i845 board and 128MB of SDRAM. If you would have been content with your i820 board and just kept using RAMBUS, you could reuse the RAM in a pentium4 processor and had killer performance. RDRAM was expensive, but it's still useful, even after the launch of the first 133MHZ FSB processor, correct? Intel was building their new processor around Empire, and you had an opertunity to be part of the pie. Abit made a Slot1 i815 motherboard once.. and you coulda went that or just gotten a Slotket (Socket to Slot adapter) and just plunked a Socket370 processor on the motherboard. Thus, your complaining about switching platforms is also muted. RDRAM making more heat and higher latency? That's absurd. Have you ever compared 133MHZ Pentium3 processors coupled with AGP 4X and compared them in a situation like heavy gaming? HEAT?! Who cares about heat? Why is everyone using Pentium4's over C3's and Tualatin PIII's? Pentium4 Williamettes had inferior performance to high end PIII-S processors which produced half the heat and Pentium4 still prevailed. Besides, The i815E and the i820 aren't *that* far apart. What left over bandwidth left over from the processor goes to the AGP slot, thus saying that a Pentium3 can't realy utilize all that bandwidth isn't entirely true in professional apps where you have massive T&L going down.


The i820 is still a viable platform today, for most any pentium3 processor going up to a gigahertz. Slot1 1GHZ PentiumIII's are a mere 30$ over their socket counterparts. RDRAM not useful? may I point out that I am running on twin 128MB RIMMs at the moment and they're PC800 and I love both of 'em as much as I love my single PC133 DIMM at home...

I can see your point about wanting more than 128MB of memory, but that memory would have still been useful today. Have you noticed that the same PC800 RIMM will work just as well with a Pentium600EB as it will with a 2.53GHZ Pentium4 coupled to an i850E platform? It could be an investment in the future.

If you really must have more than a certian amount of RAM and don't wanna be stuck with 128MB of RAM or if were other people in that situation you coulda just sold the motherboard off on Ebay and went with an intel i815 motherboard and bought SDRAM and saved your RDRAM for later when the Pentium4 madness began. Or you coulda just sold it to a poor chap who accepted the VC820 replacement deal and sold the RAMBUS RIMM to him at near SDRAM cost (Which woulda been a huge boon to both you and him so you coulda ditched it and he coulda had more memory, if that's what he wanted).

Now that SDRAM and RAMBUS (As in both quality modules) are nearing parity, what does it matter? A crucial SDRAM DIMM costs nearly as much as a Samsung RDRAM RIMM and I guarantee you both are the best in the buisiness for their respective realms..

You had choices. Why not accept a VC820 and upgraded it with more RDRAM once it got cheap (After the Pentium4 launch)? You *knew* Intel was pushing RDRAM in the market, and when Intel pushes something, it goes...

Personally, I would much rather have an i820 board with RDRAM memory today than a i815 board with SDRAM memory because atleast the RAMBUS memory is still useful..

Please, MTHUSER, see the light. Intel may have tried to strongarm the market, but they made sure everyone was taken care of.

 

[mastertech01]

I put one of those replacement VC820 in my daughters puter, and its running great with almost any processor. I have run PII 350 to PIII 1GHZ in it. It also has nice onboard features as well. I didnt use the free pair of 64MB RDRAM however, I used a couple 128MB PC800 I had laying around that can be had REAL CHEAP compared to when this board was first released.

Any attorney who thinks he can soak a bunch of whiners of the majority of the proceeds of this suit would naturally be interested if he has enough clients. I dont think you will have a snowballs chance in hell of winning though.

 

[mthuser]

Intel would be so happy to know they have so many supporters on AnandTech! Either that or everyone just really hates lawyers. Either that or a whole lot of people work for Intel. In any case, the point that's being ignored is a very simple one. Intel made a bad deal with Rambus, bad for them and bad for the market. That's their business, but it's up to consumers what technology they want to use. I decided not to use RDRAM because I don't like the technology, I don't like Rambus, and it was too expensive. Intel then decided to try to reverse that decision by giving me no good choices other than using RDRAM, even though they could have saved money by doing so. What if Intel made a marketing deal with a tobacco company and offered to replace defective motherboards with 500 packs of cigarettes? You could say cigarettes are cool, the value of the cigarettes is much more than the value of the motherboard, take all the money you would spend on cigarettes and buy a new motherboard, sell them if you don't want them, don't run to lawyers they'll just smoke all the cigarettes, etc. However, I did not buy cigarettes, I don't think they're cool, and I don't want to buy them, sell them, accept them, or use them. I also did not buy RDRAM, and I don't want to buy, sell, accept, or use it either. It doesn't matter whether you agree with my opinion of RDRAM and/or Rambus, it's my decision what products I want to use and if you have a different opinion then you can use RDRAM in your computer. If Intel will not give consumers something they want at least as much as what they paid for or give them all their money back for all the products they would not have wanted had they know about the defects in the products paid for, then they richly deserve to be sued. If some lawyers wind up getting more money than they deserve, at least they deserve it more than Intel and Rambus, at least consumers will get something, and maybe next time Intel will know better. As for the chances of winning the suit, there are now two law firms looking at it, including one involved in a class action against another well known computer company, and they are making that determination. If one or both firms decides they want to litigate this case then it will go forward.

 

[AndyHui]

I wish you would write in paragraphs.

I don't know where you get this claim that the RDRAM deal is bad. It's been quite successful so far if you look at it from a dispassionate point of view. Bad for the market eh? SDRAM is a dead-end technology. It can't scale further. You have to look at something else, and until something better comes along, RDRAM works quite nicely.

Your cigarette example is irrelevant. You cannot use cigarettes in a computer.

RDRAM is simply technology. Why hate it? If you choose not to use it, use something else. That's fine. There's no need to be so worked up about it, and that's really the point that I have been trying to make in ALL of my posts.

 

[Tates]

That's their business, but it's up to consumers what technology they want to use.

Exactly, it's all about choice.

I decided not to use RDRAM because I don't like the technology, I don't like Rambus, and it was too expensive.

Good for you. The operative word here is expensive, and you don't like. Again, it's all about choice.

What if Intel made a marketing deal with a tobacco company and offered to replace defective motherboards with 500 packs of cigarettes? You could say cigarettes are cool, the value of the cigarettes is much more than the value of the motherboard, take all the money you would spend on cigarettes and buy a new motherboard, sell them if you don't want them, don't run to lawyers they'll just smoke all the cigarettes, etc. However, I did not buy cigarettes, I don't think they're cool, and I don't want to buy them, sell them, accept them, or use them.

What kind of comparison is that?!?

I also did not buy RDRAM, and I don't want to buy, sell, accept, or use it either.

Again the operative word is choice.
That's their business, but it's up to consumers what technology they want to use.

Exactly, it's all about choice.

I decided not to use RDRAM because I don't like the technology, I don't like Rambus, and it was too expensive.

Good for you. The operative word here is expensive, and you don't like. Again, it's all about choice.

What if Intel made a marketing deal with a tobacco company and offered to replace defective motherboards with 500 packs of cigarettes? You could say cigarettes are cool, the value of the cigarettes is much more than the value of the motherboard, take all the money you would spend on cigarettes and buy a new motherboard, sell them if you don't want them, don't run to lawyers they'll just smoke all the cigarettes, etc. However, I did not buy cigarettes, I don't think they're cool, and I don't want to buy them, sell them, accept them, or use them.

What kind of comparison is that?!?

I also did not buy RDRAM, and I don't want to buy, sell, accept, or use it either.

Again the operative word is choice.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with my opinion of RDRAM and/or Rambus, it's my decision what products I want to use and if you have a different opinion then you can use RDRAM in your computer.

Exactly. It's all about freedom of choice. And ditto about my opinion.

If Intel will not give consumers something they want at least as much as what they paid for or give them all their money back for all the products they would not have wanted had they know about the defects in the products paid for, then they richly deserve to be sued.

If that type of rationale were applied to everything, then children would be suing their parents because they ended up with crooked teeth, big proboscis and balding pates. I personally want to sue someone for the beer belly I sport. No where on the bottles does it say, it all goes to your midriff. Wait, I hear two law firms cranking up the gears. Good, more money for lawyers.

....(dumb analogies allowed..Your rules)

If some lawyers wind up getting more money than they deserve, at least they deserve it more than Intel and Rambus, at least consumers will get something, and maybe next time Intel will know better.

Why should lawyers make money. I thought this was for the little guy?

As for the chances of winning the suit, there are now two law firms looking at it, including one involved in a class action against another well known computer company, and they are making that determination. If one or both firms decides they want to litigate this case then it will go forward.

We live in such a litigious society that anyone can sue anyone over anything. You don't like my opinion? Sue me...

 

[Athlon4all]

I agree with Andy. There is no reason for this. If someone with a CC820 board is having stability problems, they just have to talk to Intel or the mobo maker and rest assured they would very quickly provide replacement RAM, CPU, Mobo or whatever the user needed for free. Performancde is indentical between PC133 and PC800 on the P3.

What about users wanting more than 128 MB of memory?

Maybe, but again whhats to stop the user from selling their VC820+PC800 and getting a 815e+PC133??? I dunno about the market value of VC820+PC800 at the time though, but I'd bet you could find a buyer at a worth while price.

If the case goes forward and Intel is held liable, next time they will know that they will have to take responsibility for their own decisions and maybe they will think twice before backing the next Rambus. If not, they will just do the same thing next time, and we will all pay for it again.

I think that is just bull. Intel replaced every single defective MTH with a new board, RAM, and or CPU as long as people came to them. They've done all they could've in their situation. They did make a mistake in releasing the MTH yes, but they did all they could've done to make the victim's happy.

As for performance, the following articles from Tom's Hardware Guide documented the flaws in RDRAM. Interestingly, they have been removed from THG and from Google and Archive.org. However, the last one is mirrored elsewhere.

They don't apply. Like all technolgy, RDRAM has moved forward. Maybe not the moduels themselves, but the chipsets have. 820 was Intel's very first attempt at a RDRAM Memory controller and it was very immature, but since they their memory controller has gotten all sorts of features that made RDRAM faster, not to mention the P3's fsb was too slow to take advantage of PC800's additional bandwidth (just like the Athlon's 200fsb cant really take advantage of DDR333's bandy now. Think back in late 2000, when AMD 760 was first reeleased for the Athlon. It did not provide a significant performance improvement from a PC133+KT133A setup, and it costed more than SDRAM, and look today it moved forward as well. The P4 needs at least DDR to perform well, as does the Athlon XP.

Please, MTHUSER, see the light. Intel may have tried to strongarm the market, but they made sure everyone was taken care of.

Exactley. Intel tried to push theior interests yes, but when it backfired, they did make sure everyone was made happy.

The Bottom line is that Intel did the best that they could've been expected to do in the mistake they made with the MTH and that was to replace that with equivalnt hardware that is not faulty, and if you don't like what they give you, too bad. You never had to ask them to replace any thing in the first place. And RDRAM has matured significantly then where it was when 820 was launched. It is undoubtedly the fastest Offical memory type for the Pentium 4. PC800 beats DDR333, esp. on the 533fsb and if you want to figuremin the "unoffical" memory "standards, then RDRAM comes out on top still. PC1066 is untouchable by DDR400. Benchmarks prove it. if you don't want to get RDRAM in return then you could've alwas asked them for a refund or just sold it. And I don't want to hear your arguement that you couldn't have gotten real value for the VC820+PC800. I will be keeping an eye on this as well.

 

[mthuser]

RDRAM is simply technology. Why hate it? If you choose not to use it, use something else.

I don't hate RDRAM, but I don't want to use it because the benchmarks and information I saw suggested that it was at best immature, proprietary technology and because the company developing it seemed more interested in filing patent suits than in improving their technology.

If Rambus had it's way, we wouldn't be able to use something else, because they have claimed patents not only on RDRAM but also DDR SDRAM and even SDR SDRAM. If they ever succeed in enforcing such patents, they will control the memory industry, and we will all have only the choices they want us to have and pay the prices they want us to pay. I don't want that to happen, so I don't want to support Rambus by using their products. Very simple.

I decided not to use RDRAM because I don't like the technology, I don't like Rambus, and it was too expensive.

To which the reply was: Good for you. The operative word here is expensive, and you don't like. Again, it's all about choice.

Actually, the operative word is not expensive. Cost is only one reason to buy or not buy a product. My desire not to support Rambus was also an important factor. I would not use RDRAM even if it was less expensive than other forms of RAM.

Intel replaced every single defective MTH with a new board, RAM, and or CPU as long as people came to them. They've done all they could've in their situation. They did make a mistake in releasing the MTH yes, but they did all they could've done to make the victim's happy.

No, they didn't. I came them and said instead of giving me a motherboard and $400 in memory, just give me an i815 motherboard and a socket 370 processor that costs you much less. They said no. The I said Ok, just take the motherboard and the processor back and give me my money. They said no. They even had the nerve to offer me a 440 BX based board, with a value at the time of $115, instead of the $150 cash they were offering to everyone, and that was only on condition of my signing a non-disclosure agreement, which of course I didn't sign.

Either one of the options I proposed would have been more in my interest than the options Intel was willing to provide, and also less expensive for Intel, but in spite of that Intel apparently regarded my options as less in its interest. So, even though I paid them money for defective products that they designed, their interest was more important then my interest. Intel offered as many options as possible to make it look like they were accommodating their customers, but limited those options to the options it would be in their interest for customers to accept. Therefore, they may get sued, and if so they will deserve it.

 

[AndyHui]

I don't hate RDRAM, but I don't want to use it because the benchmarks and information I saw suggested that it was at best immature, proprietary technology and because the company developing it seemed more interested in filing patent suits than in improving their technology.

If Rambus had it's way, we wouldn't be able to use something else, because they have claimed patents not only on RDRAM but also DDR SDRAM and even SDR SDRAM. If they ever succeed in enforcing such patents, they will control the memory industry, and we will all have only the choices they want us to have and pay the prices they want us to pay. I don't want that to happen, so I don't want to support Rambus by using their products. Very simple.

You seem to be living in the past. RDRAM is no longer immature, and is quite widely used. RAMBUS are improving their technology. We have PC1066 in a month or so, and 32-bit RIMMs not long after that. You also seem to ignore that it is the best performing memory out there for the Pentium 4, without question.

If ANY company had its way, we would only be able to use their products. Every company manager/CEO wishes that everyone will use their and only their products. As it is, RAMBUS does not control the industry, and is having a very difficult time getting there.

Again, you should separate the company from the technology. Microsoft is a monopoly. Do you use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office?

How about we come up with another example. Creative SBLive cards don't work with many VIA chipset boards. Neither Creative nor VIA have offered product replacement. In a simile, Creative would offer Audigy boards that work with VIA motherboards, but you don't want the Audigy, you want the Live. Who to sue now? Creative? VIA?

Oh wait, that's bad, because I've given you another target to sue. How about I save you the trouble and register www.CreativeandVIAClassAction.org first?

 

[Adul]

mthuser, you seem to not realize the market place is a differnt place today. You might has well sue intel for requiring you to buy yet another new MB to run the tulation P3. Or AMD for using a different propierty socket for thier cpus. I feel that this lawsuit is a little to late. Intel offered a fix, though it maybe undesirable,it was an option to fix. I don't see how you can win this in court actually. Especially if yo go by what the people here are telling you. Try sompling the other forums and you may find similiar responses.

 

[Athlon4all]

I don't hate RDRAM, but I don't want to use it because the benchmarks and information I saw suggested that it was at best immature, proprietary technology and because the company developing it seemed more interested in filing patent suits than in improving their technology.

Please show me a recent article used on the latest platforms and CPU's (ie 850e+533fsb Pentium 4 Northwood) where it shows that RDRAm does not perform well

If Rambus had it's way, we wouldn't be able to use something else, because they have claimed patents not only on RDRAM but also DDR SDRAM and even SDR SDRAM. If they ever succeed in enforcing such patents, they will control the memory industry, and we will all have only the choices they want us to have and pay the prices they want us to pay. I don't want that to happen, so I don't want to support Rambus by using their products. Very simple.

True, but, I think that it is best to focus on the product not the company.

No, they didn't. I came them and said instead of giving me a motherboard and $400 in memory, just give me an i815 motherboard and a socket 370 processor that costs you much less. They said no. The I said Ok, just take the motherboard and the processor back and give me my money. They said no. They even had the nerve to offer me a 440 BX based board, with a value at the time of $115, instead of the $150 cash they were offering to everyone, and that was only on condition of my signing a non-disclosure agreement, which of course I didn't sign.

Either one of the options I proposed would have been more in my interest than the options Intel was willing to provide, and also less expensive for Intel, but in spite of that Intel apparently regarded my options as less in its interest. So, even though I paid them money for defective products that they designed, their interest was more important then my interest. Intel offered as many options as possible to make it look like they were accommodating their customers, but limited those options to the options it would be in their interest for customers to accept. Therefore, they may get sued, and if so they will deserve it.

Hmmm. Well, that is the first story like that I've heard. But I think that is beside the point.

 

[BDSM]

Mthuser is right. If you buy a product and it doesn't do what it's sposed to they have to give you a refund. Not give you a similar product.

The car example is good. If you buy a car and discover that the engine doesn't work and the manufacturer gives you a new engine that only runs on nitromethane bundled with ten gallons of that fuel you would ofcourse NOT accept.

You wouldn't accept because you would know that the price of that fuel (RDRAM) is SKY HIGH.

And stop yapping of how great RDRAM is coupled with the P4. That's only semi true and it's totally irrelevant.

The i820+sdram disaster happened long before the P4. Saying that the stick of RDRAM that was offered back then was a generous offer is wrong. With the prices on RDRAM back then it was simply too expensive if you wanted to upgrade the memory. That's really also besides the point.

If Intel can't deliver what they promise they have to refund the money.

Every other manufacturer has to. The same rules apply to Intel even if they are the biggest and badest.

The End

 

[AndyHui]

BDSM: It is a common policy to replace a defective product with a similar product.

Your example with the replaced engine is invalid, because it implies that nitromethane is inferior to standard petrol. This is not the case with RDRAM. RDRAM offers the same performance on the Pentium III platform as SDRAM.

If the price of RDRAM is sky high, then if you are smart, you would accept and resell, making a profit.

The Pentium 4 platform is great coupled with RDRAM. This is completely true. There is no semi-truth about this.

As in my example above, should VIA and Creative offer refunds with the SBLive+KTxxx problems? Should AMD offer refunds for cracked cores?

I do understand your point of view, BDSM, but in your opinion does this warrant a class action?

Will you push class action on a small vendor that does the same? May I ask if you run a business?

 

[mthuser]

Thanks BDSM for helping me out!

If ANY company had its way, we would only be able to use their products.

Exactly, which is why open standards are such a good idea, which is yet another reason why RDRAM is such a bad idea.

Microsoft is a monopoly. Do you use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office?

I do try to avoid Microsoft products, as many people do, for the same reasons I am avoiding RDRAM: performance, cost, and principle. I don't think Microsoft software is that good, most of the new "features" added from version to version are really marketing ploys and security holes, the price keeps going up and if Microsoft has its way it will sell software as a service instead of as a purchase, so that users will have to keep paying and paying, and I don't like Microsoft's efforts to control the market.

I have unfortunately not been able to avoid their products completely, but I intend to migrate to Linux instead of Windows / Office XP to save money, get better software that I can modify, and not support Microsoft. I will also point out that Microsoft has been sued.

Creative SBLive cards don't work with many VIA chipset boards. Neither Creative nor VIA have offered product replacement. In a simile, Creative would offer Audigy boards that work with VIA motherboards, but you don't want the Audigy, you want the Live. Who to sue now? Creative? VIA?

In order for products to interoperate, they need to conform to standards. If Via and Creative advertise their products as compliant with standards and then one of them isn't, the manufacturer of that products should offer to replace the product or refund the cost. I don't know whether Via or Creative is at fault in this case, but we know that Intel is at fault and they have acknowledged it.

There are reasons why users might not want the Audigy card, for example it takes up two PCI slots. Or, maybe it doesn't have drivers for the operating system the user wants to use, or maybe there's some other reason. Unless the replacement it identical, it's up to the user to decide whether the replacement is suitable. If it was a Creative problem and the user did not want the Audigy as a replacement, Creative should offer a refund. If at the same time the user purchased a proprietary Creative DVD drive that only works with the old sound card and doesn't even work with newer Creative sound cards, and is therefore no longer usable, Creative should take that back too.

True, but, I think that it is best to focus on the product not the company.

Why? When making as decision, I think it is best to focus on all the consequences of that decision, including the effect on the company that made the product. If that company is acting in a way that you feel is detrimental to you or some interest you care about, you can not buy their products.

Your example with the replaced engine is invalid, because it implies that nitromethane is inferior to standard petrol. This is not the case with RDRAM. RDRAM offers the same performance on the Pentium III platform as SDRAM.

Your argument is illogical. BDSM's comment didn't assume anything about the performance of nitromethane, it assumed that nitromethane was more expensive, which RDRAM was. There also might be other reasons someone might not want it. What if it was dangerous to handle or too polluting? What if they accepted it and took your advice to sell their free 10 gallons? They would then be stuck with a car needing nitromethane, and would have to start buying it themselves. That's even assuming they could sell the nitromethane. Ever tried standing on the corner selling a bucket of gasoline?

Will you push class action on a small vendor that does the same? May I ask if you run a business?

You would hope a small vendor would be more interested in taking care of its customers than Intel has been. Only Intel could survive for long behaving the way Intel is behaving. Intel should respect that consumers have a choice about what technology they want to use, and should not be trying to undermine the choices consumers have made while sidestepping responsibility for flaws in their products. However, they have an army of lawyers, and they assume nobody will sue them, not to mention Rambus, which is a company made of lawyers. Unfortunately, the only way for consumer to get a fair deal here seems to be for them to have a few lawyers on their side too.

 

[AndyHui]

Tell me, instead of going directly to Intel, did you try going to your vendor?

It may have been easier for you to get what you wanted from your vendor instead of going to Intel. The reason why Intel rejected your suggested solution is that they have implemented a particular exchange policy for that issue. To deviate from that policy involves a great deal of paper work.

In order for products to interoperate, they need to conform to standards

Easier said than done.

 

[Tates]

The car example is good. If you buy a car and discover that the engine doesn't work and the manufacturer gives you a new engine that only runs on nitromethane bundled with ten gallons of that fuel you would ofcourse NOT accept.You wouldn't accept because you would know that the price of that fuel (RDRAM) is SKY HIGH.

When arguing a point in a debate, it helps to offer analogies that are relevant. A faulty automobile could be cause for safety issues. I don't remember ever hearing about a buggy mb killing anyone. Enough with the corny analogies

And stop yapping of how great RDRAM is coupled with the P4. That's only semi true and it's totally irrelevant.

I hardly think you have a quarter of the expertise and technical knowledge of Andy. That was out of line :|

If Intel can't deliver what they promise they have to refund the money.

Every other manufacturer has to. The same rules apply to Intel even if they are the biggest and badest.

Give me a break. This whole argument is based on opportunist greed.

The End

I certainly hope so.