Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : 3DFX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Garee who wrote (13289)	6/15/1999 2:08:00 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

Really OT -- Re. Sun Micro >> Can you define "fabless" for me? I think a fab is where you make chips, so "fabless" means you don't make chips. Sun Micro is not a chip maker (which is what the original post said and compared them to old 3dfx). That means they are also not a fabless chip maker. They make computers for a variety of applications. This includes Java machines based on Java chips (which they have also licensed to others). >> SUNW does not sell any workstation which does not use a Sparc processor. I was wrong about present models based on Intel. What I should have said is that they also make PCI based computers as well as the S-bus. They will however make workstations based on the new Intel chip and in the past they have used other manufacturers CPUs with mixed results (Sun3, Sun4?, and 386i). I don't think the fact that Sun Micro chose to leave out production of PCs to companies like CPQ and DELL is very different than shipping it themself, given that, they have ported their operating system to PCs (Solaris for Intel). This means that you can buy a Compaq PC. Run Solaris on it. And for most practical purposes, pretend that it is a Sun workstation. >> If you don't think SUNW controls the Sparc consortium you aren't thinking too clearly. Well, it wouldn't be the first time for me to be confused. But I never said that Sun has no influence on Sparc (just as I did not say 3dfx should make Glide PD) Obviously Sun Micro exerts a lot of influence on SPARC. Why shouldn't they? They invented it and no one said they don't know how to run a business. I think Sun owns 40~60% of SPARC Org and the rest belongs to others. I've counted at least 47 members in SPARC org sparc.org >> SUNW gets royalties on every Sparc clone sold Of course Sun gets royalties for every Sparc sold! They are a business not a free research center. >> Most clone makers...are dead or dying. The fact that the smaller clone makers are in dire-straights, just means that Sun is a formidable opponent. It does not mean that Sun persued exclusionary policies to kill the competition. In fact, Sun is so confident of themself, that they are officially supporting Linux -- even though you could consider Linux competition for Solaris for Intel; you can install the Linux libs on a Sun box and run applications written for Linux. The bottom line is that you can license SPARC (or Java or whatever else Sun makes) and build yourown machines to compete with Sun if you want to. When Ross came up with HyperSparc, SunOs needed to be patched to support the module. Sun had no objections to this and it did not void your support contract. To put this in perspective, it was the equivalent of licensing PII from Intel. Modifying it to allow 2~4 processors in one casing. Modifying Windows NT to take full advantage of the new CPU. Have IBM base their systems on it. And none of the companies objecting to this and supporting it all the way. The day I see such a thing in the PC world, then I will agree that the PC kids are not scared of a little competition and are open to innovation. Ross failed because they bit more than they could chew. You had to wait for months to get your hypersparcs. As well, about 18 months later, Sun introduced the Ultra Sparc, just as Ross was getting enough production capacity. Such is life. But you can't deny the possibility of Compaq deciding to make Sun or Sparc clones. It's just that Compaq has decided to leave it to others. Final point: Competition is not only good for the public, it is also great for the companies. Companies that pursue exclusionary policies to kill their competition and strive to get a strangle-hold on their customers, will lose in the long term. Yes they will have better revenue and profits in the short run, but they will lose their technological and business edge and will lose touch with their market. Those who embrace the competition, will rip the benefits of healthy, lean life style with lots of exercise. The only possible exception here is Intel. But that is only because Andy Grove pushes Intel to obsolete itself every year. Regards, Sun Tzu