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: Dave B who wrote (28865)	9/7/1999 9:38:00 AM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

RE: <Windows 2000 is calling for 256 meg as the preferred minimum (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=11168917) Intelligent people would take that to mean that the Windows 2000 specification (written by Microsoft) says that 256M is the preferred minimum.> Well, I wouldn't take that to mean that the Microsoft spec calls for 256. I could care less what the MS spec calls for since I know it's just bs. I read his statement as: "Windows 2000 requires 256 MB ..." If he wanted to say that Microsoft recommended it then I expect he would have said "Microsoft" instead of "Windows 2000."

To: Dave B who wrote (28865)	9/7/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: Dan said... Dave, Have you ever heard of de facto and de jure? It's basically a phrase to describe situations where the reality differs from the way it's "supposed to be". There is a highway near me that I take to work some days (I-55). The de jure speed limit is 55, but the fact is, not only is it possible to exceed that speed, but the reality is that nearly 100% of the vehicles go faster than 55 most of the time. The average speed is actually between 70 and 80 most of the time. Now I may have W2K experience at this point, but you don't, so lets look at something you must have worked with. Window 95 has the following memory requirements from Microsoft: 4 meg minimum, 8 meg recommended. Have you ever used a Win 95 system with 4 meg? How about 8 meg? Would you recommend it? You know what? I'm done with the memory issue. I'll just leave you with your conviction the the recommended memory requirements from Microsoft are the best predictor of eventual memory use. Obviously, I was wrong, noone will ever buy more then 64 meg for W2K and no one ever bought more than 8 meg for Win 95. I can't imagine that anyone has ever ordered a Win 95 PC with more than the "recommended" 8 meg of RAM, can you? =========================================================== support.microsoft.com Memory ..... 4 MB of RAM (minimum); 8 MB (recommended) Video display ..... VGA (minimum); Super VGA (recommended) Disk space ..... 30 MB of free hard-disk space is recommended. The full custom installation requires a minimum of 19MB. A certain amount of free disk space may also be required for a swap file, depending on how much RAM the computer has. As a guideline, 14 MB of memory is required, which can be divided between RAM and disk space. For example: If the computer has 4 MB of RAM, at least 10 MB of free disk space is required for a swap file. If the computer has 14 MB of memory, it needs very little disk space for a swap file. ======================================================== Your simple faith that because a company has issued a press release claiming that, withing a few months, that company will ship hundreds of millions of complex parts of a type that they've never produced before is too sweet for me to dare to contradict. No one ever makes mistakes, or is overly optimistic on those press releases. Look at the way bubble memory and microchannel came to dominate their respective areas, just as the press releases said they would. So what if PCs are latency, not bandwidth limited. Just stay focused on the increased bandwidth of rambus, never worry about whether or not bandwidth matters to PCs. Repeat after Dave, Rambus has great bandwidth, Rambus has great bandwidth! Just one nagging little thought, if bandwidth is of any importance at all, why are all of the large servers, that have to move gigabytes back and forth all day long, all moving to PC133 and DDR instead of rambus? ===================================================== ebnonline.com Pulling told EBN at the Intel Developer Forum in Palm Springs, Calif., that server OEMs backing the Reliance chipset, which directs traffic for Intel's processors, include Compaq Computer, Dell Computer, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, NEC, and Siemens. Pulling said even Sun Microsystems, which uses its own UltraSparc processor, is adopting the Reliance chipset for its server platforms. Dell Computer Corp.'s adoption of the third-party DDR chipset breaks a long tradition for the company, which typically uses Intel core-logic chipsets ======================================================= Dan