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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Apollo who wrote (84905)	7/4/1999 11:20:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Snasraway - Re :"Anti-Merced position paper...." That was written by Steve Porter - the guy who has been pumping up CYRIX for 3 or 4 years on the Cyrix thread while his Cyrix investment collapsed into severe losses. He spends time now occasionally predicting how great AMD is going to do against Intel - where he is having similar "success". This guy couldn't see the difference between an Intel and a Cyrix or AMD, so I see no reason that he is qualified to even DISCUSS Merced let alone pass judgement on its technical merits, or its potential in the market place. Losers may choose to become critics, but critics rarely have any concept of the future. Paul

To: Apollo who wrote (84905)	7/4/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<Anti-Merced position paper> The guy who wrote that, Steve Porter, takes all of the legitimate concerns about Merced, blows them way out of proportion, and repeats them over and over again in order to fill up a "Top-Ten" list. Tenchusatsu

To: Apollo who wrote (84905)	7/4/1999 6:27:00 PM
From: Diamond Jim	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

"Anti-Merced position paper" - Did you notice who the author was? Steve Porter, SI's Steve Porter? Isn't he the guy who used to sign every post with something like I love Iomega as it went from 100 to 5? or that he loves NSM or some other loser? Just wonder if it's the same SP.

To: Apollo who wrote (84905)	7/5/1999 7:59:00 AM
From: Bill Fischofer	Respond to of 186894

Re: Merced Don't confuse Merced with IA-64. Merced, as the first implementation of IA-64, is sure to have its warts and problems, but there can be no doubt that IA-64 is INTC's major strategic thrust for enterprise computing in the 21st century. The author is correct that IA-64's day will be 2005 and beyond. Remember what the game plan is here. When IBM decided not to expand its flagship System/390 architecture beyond 31-bit addressing it effectively signed the death-warrant for the IBM mainframe era. The question is which 64-bit architecture will succeed it? The current leading candidates are: 1. SUNW's UltraSPARC: Proprietary to SUNW and thus a non-starter unless you believe that SUNW will take over the computing industry. 2. PowerPC: IBM just can't bring itself to pull the trigger and shoot the 390 itself. 3. Alpha: Still an outsider and a longshot, but the only 64-bit architecture running Windows NT today. A possible contender if INTC stumbles badly and CPQ takes bold action to broadly license it. Samsung is its most aggressive proponent. Definitely the one which has INTC looking over its shoulder. IA-64 thus represents both an inevitable evolution of the current Wintel regime as well as a strategic imperative for INTC. It is their most important transition since the 8088, but just as was the case with IA-32 must be viewed in historical context as a multi-generational shift. IA-64 is designed for the datacenter, not the desktop, and that is where the battle for succession will be won or lost. Merced is just the first footsoldier in what will be a protracted war.