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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (24317)	7/8/1999 5:53:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 93625

>>Please don't think of me as the common enemy. I am long the stock as a trading position. I certainly hope everybody does well financially on their stocks.<< kash, I don't think Dave B. really thinks of you as the common enemy. We reserve that title for Fleckenstein. <g> Good luck on your trading position. bp

To: kash johal who wrote (24317)	7/8/1999 5:56:00 PM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Kash, Please don't think of me as the common enemy. I didn't mean that as a serious statement -- just as someone's who's taking the other side of the argument. It's kind of interesting that nobody has bellied up to the bar and stated that RDRAM systems are going to kick butt in performance with PC100/PC133 memory. We've already said that that's not the issue for us. If Intel wants it to happen, it will happen. For every battle that you could name that Intel has lost (and I can't think of one off the top of my head) I could name 10 or more that they've won when setting standards. And that doesn't even include the ones that don't make the light of day (like some HDD interface proposals). In two years, the difference in cost of producing RDRAM and SDRAM will be negligible. I know you don't agree and we'll just have to set that aside for 2 years. Especially when you factor in the cost savings in lower pin counts. Dave