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: capt rocky who wrote (28737)	9/5/1999 5:06:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Capt. dan spouts spin and unc. west backs up his writings with facts and links to those facts. thats the difference. Fine, but there are a lot of facts still missing, like performance of a PC with Rambus inside. Also, Dan does have system experience from which to draw on what you call his "spins." How do you know he isn't right? Maybe Unc. only posts the positive-to-Rambus articles. My neutral opinion, FWIW, is that RMBS has gotten way, way ahead of itself, for a stock in a company with a zillion question marks. Risk/reward just not there for me. Woops, does that make me not neutral? Tony

To: capt rocky who wrote (28737)	9/5/1999 5:39:00 PM
From: sriudupa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

I am new to this. Can you tell me what fud stands for? Sri

To: capt rocky who wrote (28737)	9/6/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: dan will not admit shorting rmbs... You aren't paying attention - to my posts or to the information available on Rambus. I've posted a number of times that I'm holding Rambus puts and why it is that I'm doing so. It wouldn't make sense for me to be presenting this point of view and then not demonstrate my conviction by shorting the stock. As to who is posting facts, unclewest (who is, I believe, posting only what he sincerely believes to be the best take on the present status of rambus) has an argument that boils down to: Intel is pushing rambus hard, and they've had considerable success at getting others to go along with them. I have been posting a number of links and direct inductions, including the basis for the inductions, that boil down to: the performance of rambus has been a major disappointment, the performance of non-rambus ram has proven surprisingly extendable, and that rambus is more costly and difficult to produce than was expected. Unclewest thinks that, with Intel's backing, the performance will be good enough. I think that due to the unexpected performance of Athlon and the competitive vigor of VIA, Intel is going to have no choice but to reduce its support for Rambus and instead move to PCXXX and DDR. Dan