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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earlie who wrote (64662)	7/15/1999 10:36:00 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie - (I could go on much more, but you get my drift.) At first glance, it would seem ludicrous that Intel that could be even bothered by a company (AMD) whose management competence wouldn't be rated in the top 95% by a neutral observer. However, when you depend on a product with effective commodity characteristics, you are actually in the most danger from a company whose chances of avoiding red ink fall between slim and none, but is still organized such that executive compensation is never in question. Regards, Don

To: Earlie who wrote (64662)	7/16/1999 2:10:00 AM
From: PaperChase	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, there is a lot of info to dispute with you in your post. I'll start with this one because it made my blood pressure rise: >>AMD will debut the K7 in the next few weeks. It may well be a "Pentium killer" and, if delivered in quantity, will ravage Intel's high margin server sales.<< Server sales? No self-respecting network designer would even think of using an AMD product in a server machine. The problem isn't AMD's CPU, it's the damn inferior chipsets manufactured by losers like VIA Technologies and SIS that have historically made AMD based machines less stable than their Intel counterparts. Now I am talking about history here. So based on this history, expect a lengthy evaluation and acceptance period for AMD based boxes in the server market. AMD is already dead...they just don't know it yet. (Maybe their President knows though, as he left rather sudden like.) AMD does not have the manufacturing yields to compete with Intel without self-destructing along the way.

To: Earlie who wrote (64662)	7/16/1999 7:48:00 AM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, <Let's start with inventories,...do you like to see inventories rising (on top of last quarter's rise) even as prices fall?> Finished goods inventory DECREASED. Total inventory increased due to an increase in WIP....but inventory is inventory, right? <AMD has kicked Intel's butt> AMD just reported all time record losses, Intel just reported record Q2 revenue and earnings. Must have been an awfully friendly kick <gg>. FF