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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (41665)	5/8/2000 2:44:00 PM
From: John Walliker	Respond to of 93625

Ali, I am not saying that there is no one who can understand the problem, but the bulk of traditional digital designers, who actually do the job, seems to have little clues about reflections, impedance matching, and wave dispersions. And most of them probably never will, judging form the majority of responses on this and other threads. Such problems will cause every bit as much difficulty with DDR as they perhaps did with Rambus. John

To: Ali Chen who wrote (41665)	5/8/2000 3:09:00 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 93625

Ali, my question still remains. If DDR is so simple, why did it not evolve sooner as a natural much-needed evolution of SDRAM? If all the proponents of DDR say is true, it could have eliminated the Rambus revolution altogether by getting to market sooner with its total potential realized. This did not happen. Why? Intel could have embraced it in 1996 or 1997. So could have Sony. They did not. Why? I am always worried abou the "simple" solution to a problem. In my experience it is rarely simple and often not a real solution. Why is DDR not on the shelves today?