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: Jim McMannis who wrote (93842)	2/17/2000 11:25:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1580262

Jim - <should have kept your traps shut> Yeah, I certainly should of in retrospect. What some people love to omit is he was goading me into a response, and if you read my responses, I don't confirm or deny anything. No matter. I said I was sorry. Nuff said. PB

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (93842)	2/17/2000 12:04:00 PM
From: Bert Herman	Respond to of 1580262

You are not going to believe this, but THIS IS A TRUE STORY. It happened in my shop. A men came in, complaining his new bought scanner was not functioning properly. I asked a few questions to find out what caused the problems, and then he told me he found some viruses in his system. When I told him to be more careful with other people's floppies (he is not on the internet yet), he said: H‚, I know, those viruses are very dangerous, it is enough to unscrew the cover of your PC for ten or fifteen minutes and they are already in your system. Bert

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (93842)	2/17/2000 1:26:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580262

Jim, <That's right...you, PB and Elmer should have kept your traps shut rather than denying it...> I can't speak for PB or Elmer, but as soon as I figured that Kap knew more than he should have, I stopped responding. That's the problem with guys who misuse "inside info" like Kap or Chuck. They talk about something that should not be known to the public, and then they come up with the wrong conclusions and get you AMDroids all worked up. Meanwhile, I can't rebut those arguments, since it would mean confirming ill-gotten info. Whatever it is, you guys can't honestly say that you assumed the best from the split-frequency core instead of the worst. Instead of Intel demonstrating a 0.75/1.5 GHz core, they instead demonstrated a 1.5/3.0 GHz core. Perhaps you guys should chide Kap for making you believe the worst. He was obviously using his inside information to legitimize his bogus estimates, and you fell for it. Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (93842)	2/17/2000 2:09:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580262

Mcmannis - Re: "PB and Elmer should have kept your traps shut rather than denying it..." Just like YOU should have kept YOUR MOUTH SHUT when you posted that Willamette was delayed until next year !!! {===========================================} To: Cirruslvr (84045 ) From: Jim McMannis Wednesday, Dec 22 1999 11:57PM ET Reply # 84057 of 84096 Cirrus and All, POSSIBLE BLOCKBUSTER... I received information today concerning Williamette. I can't verify it yet but I'm working on that. Anyway...this is what I've been told..it goes to the effect that... The Intel sales force has let it be known that their new chip Willamette will probably not be available until 2001 ! Seems that they were supposed to have finished the design in January -2000 - but now are forecasting another slippage that may last 6 months or more. Seems that they don't think the new design will keep up with where AMD's ATHLON will be in 2000. Well folks we'll just have to see how this precious little tidbit pans out...kind of makes sense since a 800 MHz Willamena wasn't gonna cut it.... BAM! Jim {================================} BAM BAM - Mr. Ja Ja Man ! Paul