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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (27756)	2/14/2000 8:38:00 PM
From: Steve Lee	Respond to of 64865

OT: QS, If you are looking for a RMBS like gain, I suggest you buy some RMBS. There has been a lot of controversy about this stock, and a lot of optimism. The jury has been out over the following issues: 1) technical problems with Intel chipsets supporting Rambus 2) costs & yields of Rambus memory 3) Intel's commitment to Rambus 4) DDR as a viable alternative to Rambus memory 1 has eventually been addressed and now 820 and 840 based products are shipping in quantity 2 was addressed at the recent RMBS shareholders meeting 3 Was confirmed today at the Intel Developers Forum 4 Intel at IDF today said "DDR is too little too late and it doesn't work" (not necessarily an exact quote) Until these 4 points were addressed, RMBS was an all or nothing stock, depending on which side of the fence you sat. It is no coincidence that today was the day that the last of these issues were laid to rest by Intel and that the stock finally broke decisively above its previous all time high. I think the jury has now made its decision. I expect an easy triple from here over the next 12 months, with a lot of momentum in the very short term. Factors to watch for now are: a) More DRAM manufacturers announcing RDRAM production ramps. b) A settlement in the Hitachi lawsuit c) Release of faster IA32 processors (possibly at IDF this week) which will DEMAND Rambus memory. d) Release of Timna & Willamette chips (both use Rambus) e) Release and blowout sales of Sony Playstation 2 (uses Rambus) f) Announcement of further Rambus design wins outside of the PC DRAM area All except b, in my opinion are a certainty. b is distinctly possible and could produce an immediate double.

To: QwikSand who wrote (27756)	2/14/2000 8:41:00 PM
From: briank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

QS, to heck with RMBS, CREE and NTAP is where the action has been. siliconinvestor.com briank

To: QwikSand who wrote (27756)	2/16/2000 4:32:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 64865

QwikSand, Well, I like rudedog and I enjoy having his commentary on the thread. It does lift up the level of discussion beyond the ordinary, and that, at least to me is very beneficial to everyone, including me. That being said, however, I do believe that it is important to distinguish between opinion and fact, especially opinion masquerading as fact. Perhaps we're all guilty of it, at least to some extent, but I think it's important to point out the differences between the two when it occurs. Why? Well, I am of the opinion that playing fast-and-loose with the details, especially in a technical context, can easily turn into dis-information. Dis-information is the bane of these chat rooms and we don't need it, especially if information serves the purpose of influencing potential investors. For example, If I were to say "SUNW has only 2 competitors in the internet server market: IBM & HWP, all the others don't count." That's definitely my opinion, take it or leave it. But if were to say "SUNW has only 2 competitors in the internet server market: IBM & HWP because SUNW has a 60% share of the market & IBM/HWP have the rest, so there's no room for anyone else." That's NOT an opinion, but a conclusion based on a "fact". Even if I hadn't used the figure "60%" but instead used "lion's share" or "majority" it would still indicate some statistical base for my conclusion. In that case someone would (should) say: "Quote your sources". That would be the proper response, I think everyone would agree with that. There is a way for discussions to creep into this murky area of "fact" masquerading as opinion. Sometimes it's kind of a grey area. When rudedog declares that NT is the equivalent of Solaris except for the "fact" that M$FT can't seem to control their configurations and as a result some of their own software, as well as that of 3rd party vendors, is the only (or main) reason why NT isn't as stable as Solaris, that demands an explanation. Unfortunately, such an explanation is, of necessity, going to be very technical in content. But, what else can you do?? Someone may read that post then hear from another source that M$FT has a new certification program to insure all software running under NT is stable before it is released. They may then conclude that NT is ready to compete on enterprise systems with Solaris, and it plainly is NOT. That's dis-information and it does a disservice to anyone not knowledgeable enough to understand what goes into making an O/S useful and robust. It may also influence investment decisions, though it is plainly not intended to do so (at least I hope not). All opinions are welcome. cheers, cherylw