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: Bilow who wrote (43757)	6/8/2000 2:52:00 PM
From: tayspop729	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Whoa, Carl...when you accuse Rambus of damaging other companies, I think you give those posters who question your credibility more ammunition. Although I plead technological ignorance, I thought the problems Intel has encountered in the past resulted from not using the Rambus technology in those chipsets or motherboards as designed, or were completely separate issues. Only Intel knows whether they should have jumped on or should remain on the Rambus bandwagon, but its not Rambus that has damaged any other companies. Regards, Scott

To: Bilow who wrote (43757)	6/8/2000 3:50:00 PM
From: multicollinearity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Carl. Re <While it is normal for RMBS shareholders to wear blinders about the damage their company has done to other companies, the same is not true of Intel shareholders.> Wrong Carl, the populations of RMBS and INTC shareholders are not mutually exclusive! I happen to be the holder of 1,000 shares of INTC and have been in it since the infamous math error with the 486. I also have a large position in RMBS and am a strong supporter of both companies. This is another illustration of faulty logic. Also, the fact that you gave links to your carefully selected 9 posts is totally irrelevant to the issue that your reasoning is flawed. You often use the tactic of bringing in superfluous points when you're questioned on inconsistencies. As to whether I believe that there are INTC shareholders who are unhappy with recent events, of course there are. But I do not think it is of the magnitude that you would like us to believe. Multico

To: Bilow who wrote (43757)	6/8/2000 4:12:00 PM
From: blake_paterson	Respond to of 93625

<<While it is normal for RMBS shareholders to wear blinders about the damage their company has done to other companies, the same is not true of Intel shareholders.>> Carl, you have this inherent gift to make me laugh! LOL! INTC is to blame for INTC's lousy execution, not RMBS. RDRAM has worked just fine. Whether one looks at the 3-channel screw up of Caminogate, or INTC's subsequent attempts to mollify the memory manufacturers with interim SDRAM "solutions", INTC is responsible for these. Nobody else. One thing is certain: INTC's attempts to pacify your ilk are causing them to deviate from plan, lose focus and misfire. This in turn has hurt RDRAM production ramp-up, further increasing the pressure to delay RDRAM conversion, (possibly) slowing cost reduction, and hurting INTC profitability. Of course, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MEMORY MAKERS HAVE IN MIND AND WHY GUYS LIKE YOU ARE HERE. All INTC has to do is to show leadership and execute according to its plan, and production, availability and affordability of RMBS will follow. The ultimate irony of this is that some people are trying to make RMBS out to be some sort of a malevolent force in the industry, which patents obvious art and then tries to impose it on the industry with a royalty stream. All the while, it is the commoditized memory manufacturers that are trying to get something for nothing, doing what they can to claim ownership of double data rate technology. Meanwhile, you, Scumbria, and others will continue to speak out of both sides of your mouths, arguing here that this art was obvious, while also admitting on the INTC thread: "...The decision to go with Rambus, and the de-emphasis on x86 development were both things that happened 3-6 years ago...." Where was DDR in 1994? RDRAM was "patent applied for" in 1990. Who is fooling who here? BP PS: What is your job description / responsibility? What kind (and size) of company do you work for? No names or dates are requested. You know my name, I work in the pharm industry, and I'm just a passive shareholder.