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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (90471)	10/17/1999 12:20:00 AM
From: Amit Patel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Here's an article with october updates on chipset, dram, processor, motherboards etc. realworldtech.com -Amit.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (90471)	10/17/1999 1:50:00 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: That's another Alibi Lie... Paul, Go to MSI's site, it's at: msi.com.tw Now look for any reference to the Athlon, MSI-6167, or the K7. Buried deep in tech support are some bios updates. There is no other mention of the board. Yet it's widely available and well regarded. The 810 based boards that have come out since the Athlon board are prominently featured on the web site. It's not just a matter of haven't had time, the board used to be listed here. If MSI hadn't dared to ship some boards, the Athlon would have failed. Once MSI was shipping, cover was provided and FIC and Gigabyte then began shipping - from Intel's point of view, the damage had been done by MSI. I think MSI got a tongue lashing from Intel that was so frightening that they don't dare to return any of the info that they pulled from their site. A similar thing has happened with PC133. Once VIA started shipping their chipset, Intel sued them, and has continued to press them, but once again, the damage was done so Intel approved ALI and SIS for PC133 production. If VIA's shipping of PC133 support is so terrible, why is it OK for SIS and ALI? (The ones not being punished by Intel) The message being sent by Intel is that if you defy their orders, you will be put in a disadvantageous postion relative to your competitors. And that Intel has a long memory. It doesn't seem to be working though. Instead, they seem to have convinced most of the rest of the computer industry that dependance on Intel for anything should be avoided at almost any cost. This may come back to haunt them if AMD does manager to provide a real alternative to the Intel line. Being feared by your customers works great as long as they continue to fear you - but if the fear ever goes away there's a good chance that it will be replaced by resentment. The problem here for Intel is that if AMD can maintain rough parity in chip performance, the OEMs will flock to AMD to get out from under Intel's thumb. Intel has to maintain a large lead in performance to keep the OEM's fearfull of being cut off from the only game in town. So, in a performance tie, the OEMs will switch large numbers or their orders to AMD. This is the opposite of what would normally happen with a long term supplier where the newcomer would be expected to have to demonstrate some reason (such as superior performance) to get OEMs to change. Dan