Subject: --> Final Summary of Petition to Intel Regarding Pentium FDIV Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.intel,misc.consumers, misc.legal.computing,news.admin.misc Path: fu-berlin.de!math.fu-berlin.de!zib-berlin.de!news.th-darmstadt.de!terra.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!noring From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Subject: --> Final Summary of Petition to Intel Regarding Pentium FDIV Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.sys.intel Summary: 2360 Validated Electronic Signatures! Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 18:27:28 GMT Lines: 195 Xref: fu-berlin.de comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips:19264 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc:19978 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems:13499 comp.sys.intel:34554 misc.consumers:77914 misc.legal.computing:10941 news.admin.misc:29958 [Note the followup to comp.sys.intel] Hello, This post is to summarize the results of the petition to Intel regarding the Pentium floating divide flaw. It was started on December 14, 1994, and official signature acceptance ended yesterday, January 15, 1995. The Petition statement is attached as an appendix to this post. I received 2360 validated and unique signatures, which is quite impressive considering that Intel relented only a few days after the Petition was started and essentially agreed to the first two of our three demands. I'm certain that had Intel not relented, the number of signatures would have been much higher, maybe as many as 5000 or more, since signature submission took an abrupt nose dive within hours of Intel's announcement. Out of these 2360 signatures, 1008 claimed to own or work on a Pentium-based pc, 977 said they did not, and 375 did not release this information. I urge Intel to e-mail those who own or work on a Pentium pc to make sure their needs are being met in a timely fashion. You can download the signature list (an ASCII file) via anonymous ftp from ftp.netcom.com /pub/no/noring/pentium.signatures [ Ed.Note-17/1/95-khd: This ASCII file could be found on the following ftp server too. ftp.grumed.fu-berlin.de in directory "PC" as file INTEL_PETITION_SIG.TXT ] If you have difficulty retrieving this list, e-mail me and I'll send it to you via e-mail. The raw file containing the original e-mail submissions (which is almost 3 megs in size) will be made available via anonymous ftp on request. Intel may be interested in the raw file since it contains many comments. The third demand, that Intel publicly release information on how to tell a FDIV flawed chip from a fixed one, both internally and externally, has not yet been met. Intel, do the right thing and release this information! It's really not proven if the Petition had a substantial impact on Intel in making their decision to implement a "no questions asked policy." Private feedback from my sources who supposedly have connections inside Intel has been little more than anecdotal, but does suggest it may have pushed Intel over the edge since they were being assaulted on many fronts. If anybody has more solid information on this, we'd all like to know. Anyway, I thank everybody for their signatures for this very successful Internet petition drive! It shows the power of the Internet of bringing people together for a common purpose. Jon Noring (p.s., since I don't have an e-mail address of the right person(s) at Intel to mail the signatures to, I'd appreciate it if either somebody gives me an e-mail address or if someone at Intel with the proper authority can download the information and then let me know that they received it. I am forwarding the information to several media contacts I have. Feel free to forward this announcement to others.) ****************Beginning of Petition Statement to Intel******************** Date: December 14, 1994 Subject: Petition to Intel on the Pentium Design Flaw Dear Intel: We, the undersigned, are very concerned about your handling of the floating point divide (FDIV) design flaw found in all of your Pentium processors manufactured until very recently. We do acknowledge that perfection is hard to achieve in any product. However, there are certain types of imperfections that are serious enough to warrant special attention and treatment. This is clearly one of them. Your actions to downplay the FDIV design flaw have only created confusion and hostility among your loyal customers. In addition, the fact that you knew about the design flaw from July, but did nothing to warn Pentium users about it, and even continued to ship Pentium processors with the FDIV design flaw to resellers until very recently (and probably still are), only adds fuel to the hostility felt by Pentium owners and would-be owners. We know it is not your intent to alienate your customers, but that is effectively what you have done by your mishandling of the situation up to the present. We urge you to change course immediately. You are right in saying that a large number of Pentium users will not be adversely affected by the FDIV design flaw since they are not using their Pentiums *now* for intensive floating point calculations. However, a significant and also large number of Pentium users, including scientists, engineers, designers, financial professionals, students, mathematicians and statisticians, and ordinary spreadsheet users, to name just a few of the affected groups of Pentium users, could encounter this error, with many possible negative consequences. Engineers typically do design calculations where an error could seriously affect public safety; financial analysts dealing with large sums of money where an error in the 4th significant figure (as the design flaw is sometimes capable of producing) can result in millions of dollars of losses. And do not forget that many of your customers bought a Pentium for what it potentially could do, not just to run applications they are currently using. Your claims that it will occur so rarely (e.g., once every 27,000 years for the typical user) as to be inconsequential are totally unfounded, as many recent posts by competent scientists and mathematicians to the Usenet/Internet newsgroup 'comp.sys.intel' have demonstrated beyond a doubt. In addition, IBM, a major seller of Pentium systems, recently issued a press release also doubting your claims, stating that even the ordinary spreadsheet user could encounter this FDIV error every few days -- for a large company with many spreadsheet users, this could lead to several errors per day, some of which could prove costly. Many scientists and engineers have reported that they had to throw away months of costly calculations since they are not sure the answers are correct, or that others will call into question the results during the peer review/publication process. Even several Ph.D. students have reported on Usenet that they have to rerun months of calculations, delaying the completion of their thesis by several months or more. In addition, your implied argument that it wasn't discovered for a long time as being proof that it is not serious, is also incorrect. As an arithmetic flaw, which does not give any warning, it is especially insidious because when it does occur, the user is usually unaware of it (that's why it took so long to be discovered *and* publicized). Only by rerunning the code on a machine with a proven reliable FPU can the error be seen. Most of these codes take so long to run, even on the fast Pentium, that rerunning the codes for verification is very costly and thus are usually not undertaken. Upon hearing of the FDIV design, many Pentium users have rerun FPU intensive calculations on FPU reliable processors and some have reported finding serious discrepancies that went previously unnoticed. Your present policy of downplaying the seriousness of the FDIV design flaw, by using incorrect statistical analysis (your so-called "White Paper"), and by your massive PR media blitz which tends to only give your side of the story (you call it a "subtle flaw" with shades of double-speak in George Orwell's "1984"), is especially serious and adversely affects your credibility. Your offer to replace the Pentium processor for those who, in your opinion, could be affected by the flaw, is tainted by your fairly strict and seemingly arbitrary qualification criteria, as well as your lackluster effort (effectively none) in trying to inform Pentium owners about the FDIV design flaw. Your so-called "Six Point Plan" to handle the situation is clearly motivated by damage control rather than by trying to satisfy your customers. There is a BIG difference. In summary, your mishandling of the entire situation only serves to alienate both your customers and stockholders, and may even make you legally liable for endangering the public safety and for economic losses of various sorts. We are certain you and your stockholders don't want this. We, the undersigned, therefore make the following demands, which we hope you will consider as friendly recommendations from your loyal customers: 1) That you will offer a free replacement Pentium processor (which has been updated so as to fix the FDIV design flaw without slowing down FPU performance) to any owner of a FDIV-flawed Pentium processor who requests a replacement, with *no questions asked*, and with *no exceptions*. In addition, you will make it easy, logistically, for the requester to obtain the replacement processor, and you will pay all reasonable costs for effecting the replacement. 2) That you will make a *good faith* effort to inform all Pentium owners of your replacement offer in demand #1 above, for example, by half to full-page advertising in major newspapers, magazines, trade and scientific journals, notices to Pentium system resellers, universities, research laboratories, etc. All notices and advertisements must include a clearly objective and concise assessment, written by an expert in the field not associated *in any way* with Intel, of the FDIV design flaw and in what type of applications it could cause problems. The assessment must reference, *without comment*, information recently released by IBM concerning the potential frequency of FDIV errors to spreadsheet users. The notices and advertisements must also include the information from demand #3 below. The campaign to inform Pentium owners must begin within six weeks from the acceptance of our demands. 3) That you will publicly release information on how to determine, by the serial number printed on the processor, a FDIV design flawed Pentium from one that has this design flaw fixed. This information must be posted to the Internet as well as provided to your resellers and to the editors of the major PC-related consumer magazines and PC-industry newsletters. We, the undersigned, believe the above demands are not harsh, and will help you to gain credibility and confidence among all computer users. In fact, this may actually result in a marketing victory for you, as people speak enthusiastically and do business with companies who follow the principle that "the customer is always right." They will see you as a company who cares for the little guy, with the result that your long-term success is assured. Without such consumer confidence, no business has ever been able to thrive in the long-term. We ask that you choose to put your customers first, and the long-term profits will surely follow. We are certain that your stockholders would also wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Intel, do the right thing! Signed, ********************End of Petition Statement to Intel*********************** -- OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two 1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations.