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: Road Walker who wrote (91527)	11/1/1999 8:22:00 AM
From: John A. Stoops	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, I wonder if Intel will get caught up in the Toshiba case that is reported in the Wall Street Journal today? John

To: Road Walker who wrote (91527)	11/1/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John, Amy, Tony, >>>What I meant was the soft market for high end servers reported by IBM and HP, and blamed on Y2K. Suppose you are an IT manager, .... So you decide to wait, and you use the most convienent excuse, you say you are waiting to get through Y2K before making any decisions. I have no exposure to IT managers so this is just thinking out loud, speculation...But it does bring up another question. Will Itanium be compelling enough to cause an industry slowdown prior to it's release?<<< IBM, IMO, is purposely blurring the distinction between mainframes and servers. They are lumping their entire hardware lineup, i.e., mainframes (System 390), risc processors (RS6000), and minicomputers (AS400) and their Netfinity line, and marketing them and calling them servers. Recently, I was seated next to a very interesting young man (about 45 years old) at a dinner party who has a computer business (Systems Integration) of his own and I told him about my participation on SI. He had heard of SI, but never had the time to "surf the net". I thought he had said that rather derisively. But, to make a long story short, I told him about my running feud with Tony Viola (going on now for more than 3 years) concerning mainframe computers versus servers. My implied definition of servers was anything that looked like a PC (including all those unix servers that looked like a PC) and that communicated with a number (from 4 to 40,000) of other computers that look like PC's as opposed to anything else that didn't look like a PC (AS400 as an example). In any case, if I could recall properly, this young man has met over 40-50 IT managers (and or CIOs)of large organizations with responsibilities that included mainframes and AS400 (and maybe some NCR, Unisys, etc), over the last 3 to 4 years and almost inevitably these IT managers were not around when the original decision to commit to the mainframes were made. And, it was his view that none of these IT managers, if they have the decision to make today, would opt for a Tony Viola defined mainframe <ggggg>. It was also this young man's view that none of these managers could get out of using the mainframes they inherited - but he also felt that they used the mainframe as a scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the organization. They would always point out that it was not their decision to have selected mainframes. He also pointed out that almost inevitably any new applications that had to be developed was developed on either a Unix or Intel platform. He does not recall running into any signifcantly new applications being developed on mainframe computers. Also, it was my inpression that he did not feel there were any applications that were beyond a Unix or Intel platform. But, I admit that is more my bias and my main argument with Tony Viola. He (Tony) continues to believe there are applications that require a legacy mainframe. Regards, Mary