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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Goutam who wrote (1734)	7/21/2000 1:10:33 AM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Intel red-faced over Red Hat erratumnotbug By: Mike Magee Posted: 20/07/2000 at 08:56 GMT A large UK university - we're not naming names - is livid because of an Intel erratum which is preventing it from rolling out 1U headless servers running RedHat Linux, which it wanted to adminster remotely. But a problem at Emission Boulevard, Intel's HQ, means that the boffins at the uni, rather than install commodity x86 boxes, may be forced to go with the opposition because of an erratumnotbug in the pipeline. A system administrator at the university told The Register: "1U boxes are very much in fashion and Intel launched the ISP 1100 which looked ideal." There is information about this box at this URL. However, he said, while an Intel URL shows RedHat 6.1 support for this box, and there was even a "nice installation guide" in PDF form at a URL which has now mysteriously disappeared from Emission Boulevard's Web site, he decided to check Intel's errata pages before pressing ahead with the purchase. Just as well. Because when he checked out this URL, he discovered that errata three says: "Remote installation of RedHat Linux not supported." "Given this has not been updated for a few months, our hopes are not high," he added. ® It's a while since we brought you an Intel erratumnotbug story so it's worth explaining this term to our new readers. Intel prefers The Register to use the term errata to describe problems it experiences with its silicon and whatever. We prefer the use of the term erratum, because, perhaps rather optimistically, we don't expect more than one to happen at any one time. You can find out why we describe this as erratumnotbug by referring to this Register Ancien Web Page. theregister.co.uk

To: Goutam who wrote (1734)	7/21/2000 3:07:31 AM
From: Chung Lee	Respond to of 275872

Goutama >> I don't believe EPSCONTEST has anything to do with AMD stock price action. But, I'd like to avoid any build up of such a perception (connection between AMD stock price action and our fun contest.) It was a perfect day for finger pointings, that's all. 1) Your contest was used as defacto whisper number 2) Too many calls outstanding. 3) Jerry's heaving breathing, being loud and taking shots at Intel. 4) AMD not guiding analysts properly re tax issue 5) SOX 6) SSB 7) Needham's hedging 9) VIA Add one more from me: still no Compaq and/or HP Tbird/Duron, no Gateway Durons! What's up with that? But if the stock was up today, I am sure we can find just as many reasons.

To: Goutam who wrote (1734)	7/22/2000 5:20:05 PM
From: chic_hearne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: I don't believe EPSCONTEST has anything to do with AMD stock price action. But, I'd like to avoid any build up of such a perception (connection between AMD stock price action and our fun contest.) What steps should I take in this regard? TIA Goutama, I think it all started this Q off of the first guesses. As I recall, the first few were around $2.00 per share to start with. People based their guesses off of this and I think that's how the guesses ended up so high. Also, given what happened this Q, I think we will all not be so wildly optomistic this Q. The ANALysts are starting to come around on AMD, so I'm not expecting them to be blowing out estimates by $.37 any more, especially post split. How about having the historically most accurate 10 put up their guesses first? chic