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: Dan3 who wrote (28842)	9/7/1999 12:33:00 AM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Dan, LOL! You are so missing the point, or purposefully trying to avoid it. On the memory requirements for W2k - if you think that more than 5% of the systems that ship with W2k will have less than 128 meg You were the one who said the minimum requirement for W2000 was 256M. It took me 3 minutes to find out on the Microsoft web site that it was 64M. You weren't even close. And now you're saying that the average will be 128M. Doesn't it hurt to talk out of all those sides of your mouth? When you start BS'ing, then everything you say becomes suspect. If the average W2000 system has 128M, then whoopee, you've matched my expectations for the average PC for next year. Incidentally, my client is one of the top 5 computer manufacturers, not some "cheap notebook" manufacturer. Why are you certain that market share for rambus will mirror market share for SDRAM? Again, I'm just catching you on the BS. You made an implicit assumption, based on absolutely no data that you communicated to us, that Samsung would have 50% share. That's nice for your cause but it has no basis in reality other than in a few random neurons in your head. At least I started from a known quantity. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt -- if I had used a 20% share, Rambus share would have looked 66% higher. So I didn't "become acusatory at the suggestion that market share might change", just that you changed it from 20% to 50% with nothing whatsoever to back that up, or even stating up front that it was a wild-ass-guess. I changed it from 20% to 33% which, in fact, did make the Rambus numbers look smaller than I could have tried to make them look. I've said before that I missed that doubled amount that Samsung is planning. And I said before, that was cool. Thank you for admitting it. That's right, if samsung were to max out at 3 million die a month, Hello? Samsung says that they'll be producing 6M chips a month by Q1 (3M of each; forgotten already?). What you don't state in your assumptions, again, is that production at Samsung will grow during the year. You're assuming that Samsung stays flat all year at (let's say 6M) chips per month? Then state that up front, don't hide it. But, do you really believe that their production capabilities won't grow from 6M a month as .18 really kicks in, as the RDRAM "team" addresses the cost issue, and as demand increases? I stated clearly in my answer that I assume that if they're doubling their monthly production rate from 3M per month to 6M per month over a 3 month period from Q4 to Q1, that they'll probably double again in the 9 month period from Q1 to Q4 to 12M chips per month (giving an average of 9M chips per month for the year or 13.5M 128M RIMMs for the entire year). You, on the other hand, gave us no clue as to what you were assuming. Typical FUD-speak. Make a BS statement, then try to change the issue when you get called on it. Dave