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: Elmer who wrote (91372)	10/30/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Your numbers are wrong Dan. Intel's large Fabs... Apologies if I was incorrect. My recollection (from a posting on SI somewhere) was 4 .18 FABs for Intel. Better cut those numbers to 2500% and 96% :-) By the way, your comment about gopher training costs was brilliant! Regards, Dan

To: Elmer who wrote (91372)	10/30/1999 5:17:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, pretty good response by Bob Brinker to a call-in question about Intel. The guy asked Brinker what he thought of Intel's conference this week. Brinker proceeded to describe how he regards Intel as a trading stock, bounces around a lot, very liquid, etc. But then he said that Intel had to have that call (although scheduled for a long time) to set things straight about themselves and Y2K, specifically. Said Intel, unlike IBM and HP, does not have a lot of revenue business tied up in enterprise systems like the other two, but there have been a lot of Intel bears claiming they would have a Y2K problem, nevertheless. Went on that some others, like Cisco and Sun, would also not have problems with Y2K. Intel misses the Y2K enterprise computing bug, what with their getting 64 bit systems out there starting next year. I guess the next Y2K type fear might be in anticipation of year 10,000. About 9995, Fortune 500 companies will be frantically looking for, what, C++ programmers? I've heard that Brinker had been doing his share of Intel bashing lately, glad to hear this "correct answer" (although all he had to do was listen to Barrett, Grove, et al.). Tony

To: Elmer who wrote (91372)	10/31/1999 1:02:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer and Dan3 - Intel's fabs F8 - Jerusalem, Israel -(Very mature) F7/9 - Rio Rancho, N.M. (Big, mature). F10 - Leixlip, Ireland (Big, mature) F11 - Rio Rancho, N.M. (Big, newer) F12 - Ocotillo, AZ. (Big, newer) F14 - Leixlip, Ireland (Big, newer) F15 - Aloha, OR. (Big, newer) F16 - Ft. Worth, TX. (Indefinite construction hold) F17 - Hudson, MA. (Big, newer, StrongARM, IXA, (CPQ Alpha?)) F18 - Qiryat Gat, Israel (Big, new) F20/D1B - Hillsboro, OR. (Big, new) D2 - Santa Clara, CA. (Big, variable maturity) D1C - Hillsboro, OR. (Big, 300mm development) Recently decommisioned: F5 - Aloha, OR. F6 - Chandler, AZ. * No F19 (reason unknown to me). PB