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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (89096)	1/23/2000 11:56:00 AM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 1573092

I would tend to agree with you. Double seems a bit extreme. Milo

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (89096)	1/23/2000 5:36:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1573092

TWY - <I think the gross exaggeration is implying that a "computer industry consultant" - one Andrew Allison, has enough historical perspective of IBM products to make any kind of claim particular to Copper technology.> This is true!!! But this seems to be the way of it with IBM vs. its process tech, IMHO. IBM process tech is very good. But the way its advances are presented for general consumption is some what hyped. I was on sabbatical when the IBM Cu story broke in '97. I was reading full length articles in The Oregonian which implied that other companies would find themselves behind the curve. There has been so much hype that companies actually have to defend their decision on when and how they go to Cu. I believe it was Sunlin Chou made a comment a couple of years ago to the effect, "My own mother is asking me why Intel isn't going to copper". I always kind of pictured IBM's Marketing department behind all this. And for IBM, maybe this level of attention on its process tech makes sense for its business model. It just creates a lot of side noise to fight through if perfectly viable alternatives to IBM's timeline are utilized. FWIW, all IMHO. PB