RE <<Interesting point here. Yeah, I guess us INTC longs are only interested in trivial stuff like profits, revenues, and execution. What really matters is how fast my 3D Studio MAX runs, right?>>>
Its we intc longs, not us intc longs....couldn't resist, I am trying to p*ss you off even more...jajajajajaja (now who does that remind you of).
RE <<<Good products are a means to an end, but good products alone won't cut it. This is a forum for investors first, and techies second. The end is profits and return-on-investment here, not (necessarily) how great the products are.>>>
My background is financial, not tech. When I said competing, what I meant was how they are competing in the market place and not among gamers. Ten, my intent is not to rile you up but rather to point out that there are two very opposing views on this thread.....which leads to a lot of clashes. I also think that you believe your agenda is the same as the other intc longs. That may not be any where close to the truth.
RE <<<For example, on the ZDNet Talkback Forums, the responses to the tech articles are heavily pro-AMD, since it's generally assumed (erroneously, of course <G>) that AMD's products are better than Intel's, or that Intel is an "un-American Evil Empire" that needs to be stopped. But the responses to the investment articles are heavily pro-Intel because of Intel's favorable execution and financials. When the focus of the subject changes, the opinions can change rather dramatically.>>>
Some of the evil empire stuff is true; I suspect most of it is false. Its brought up on this thread mostly to counter balance the posts gloating over intc's revenues and profits. Childish but effective.
ted |
