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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TREND1 who wrote (47972)	9/3/1999 3:28:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Respond to of 53903

Doubt it. I have recently been toying with the idea of putting together a dual-celeron box, and a decent amount of RAM will cost more than the motherboard and both processors. Given the price pressures facing boxmakers, Intel's apparent ability to continue cutting prices and increasing performance, and the profit motive, I hardly expect Dell, Emachines et al will blithely go along with doubled (much less xtupled) RAM costs. And if they do, well, we both know how effective prices are as a signalling mechanism in capitalism. -mb

To: TREND1 who wrote (47972)	9/3/1999 3:42:00 PM
From: Ed Beers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

"If you are selling a computer for $1,000 and you need dram, would you be willing to 2X,3X,4X,....10X the price for dram ??? " Larry, this is a joke right? DRAM is probably about 10% of the components cost of a $1K computer, paying even 2X would be painful. 10X would yield a $2K computer. $1K computers have 64Mbytes of RAM today. 32Mbyte machines will become popular again if ram goes too high. I think one of the things we have seen in the last year is a decrease in the price/demand elasticity. This has caused less stability in DRAM pricing. Hardly anybody really needs or wants more the 128M at any price. 32M is adequate for 99% of the applications and RAM has been so cheap that there was no reason to include less than 64Mbytes. There has been no recent growth in RAM requirements for popular software. Ed

To: TREND1 who wrote (47972)	9/3/1999 4:10:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

>>would you be willing to 2X,3X,4X,....10X the price for dram ??? Since dram is not a big percent of the total price, the answer is yes !<< larry, that is just not smart. $45 per 64 mb module x 10 would be $450. that would be 45% of your $1k box. 128 mb would be 90%. your view apparently seems to be held by the majority of wall sweet. why? it is wrong.

To: TREND1 who wrote (47972)	9/3/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Larry, I would not even pay 2X the minimum price I saw a few weeks ago, for the simple reason that I expect the demand to wane (as it generally does, eventually, with rising prices) and for the price to decline. For example, when I put my home system #2 together this fall, I plan to rob 64MB from the kids computer (put there only to take advantage of the $49 price at the time). Previously, I'd planned to add 128MB, but will defer now that the price has jumped from from $185 around Seattle to $350 to $400. Time is on my side and I'll simply make due with 64MB for a while, which has proven adequate for every application I run save one (very graphics intensive). I've waited these out before and I will again. One reason I'll wait, btw, is that for a second system, it's gotta be cheaper to fit into my budget. The idea that someone would pay 10x is ridiculous nowadays, IMHO. Upgrades will slow, system purchases will be curtailed, etc, and production will increase (as before, as with OPEC) to take advantage of the better prices and greed will prevail. BTW, the CPU I'd planned to get had dropped by 50% since I bought that 64MB of RAM... how ironic! Intel must be thrilled to see money going from their pocket into Micron's!