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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Van Winkle who wrote (158816)	7/25/2000 11:34:28 AM
From: TTOSBT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Re: "Jim Vanderslice (who has years of IBM storage experience) is not some kid dreaming of going to 0a distant galaxy. I would hesitate to apply the words "seriously underestimating" to him." ML's Fortuna says Dell is faulting as a PC company and Kumar says they are faulting as a storage company. Which is it? Are they storage or PC or Internet or VC or servers! servers! servers! OR do they just have "TREMENOUS OPPORTUNITITES" because their servers will hold up earnings until the other businesses satisfy a few more analysts? Whom shall we believe analysts or company directors? If the company is in a quiet period does that mean they will not pre-warn before earnings? TTOSBT

To: Mike Van Winkle who wrote (158816)	7/25/2000 3:15:17 PM
From: kemble s. matter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Mike, Hi!! RE: Dell executives said last week that ConvergeNet's problems are short-term and amount to little more than "transitioning" issues as it is folded into the Dell structure. But Mr. Kumar isn't buying that explanation. "If they had delivered last year as promised, they might have had a chance." Let's see Jim Vanderslice and Michael's words at a shareholders meeting vs. Kumar...or who visited Round Rock the week before we did? Richard Chu of Cowen...We (our group at the tour) were told by Don Collis that Chu had upgraded DELL to a strong buy due to what he saw here and our capabilities with Convergenet... I know who I'm bettin' on...Perhaps Kumar should go visit and then comment.. Best, Kemble

To: Mike Van Winkle who wrote (158816)	7/25/2000 4:48:46 PM
From: John Koligman	Respond to of 176387

Mike, Vanderslice may have storage experience, but over the past 10 years IBM went from the unquestioned leader in 'big iron' storage (3380/3390 dasd) to laggard. EMC with it's Symmetrix product basically took over. So take what he says with a grain of salt <gggg>. Regards, John PS - Only now is IBM attempting a counterattack with it's 'Shark' product, and it has some problems from what I have heard from my software buddies....

To: Mike Van Winkle who wrote (158816)	7/25/2000 5:40:15 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

re Kumar's comments: Dell executives said last week that ConvergeNet's problems are short-term and amount to little more than "transitioning" issues as it is folded into the Dell structure. But Mr. Kumar isn't buying that explanation. "If they had delivered last year as promised, they might have had a chance." I suppose Kumar's statements are reference his belief in the eventual success of EMC's push with FibreAlliance SAN standards? If you believe EMC's solutions become the defacto standard, there is no room for competing standards. This doesn't quite fit. The business buys the box, Dell stops referring clients to EMC, and picks up the business utilizing their own standard storage technology. IT managers could insist on EMC; but if Dell's solution is 15% less costly reference complete installation, all included, then standard or no, Dell gets the business. They need the products to offer. Dell states "25%" based on conversations with current IT managers, i.e., "I wish you could do it all - save us time and money..." etc. If this is what the IT managers are telling Dell, why would they be facetious, or why should we believe Kumar over Dell's conversation with potential buyers? Most of the current systems are still operating on cobal! Ancient. You move from 32bit to 64, flip languages, and the entire network signature changes. There are so many changing formats, storage requirements (video storage coming on line for instance) that predicting any one standard for SANs would seem improbable. A San standard does save on overall cost. But, if you can't get all to agree on the standard, why fight the market? IBM has to agree first, you'd think.