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 (48308)	7/30/2000 4:14:43 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Dadburnit Carl, You mean to tell me that if I hadn't been so fast to cave on this power thing, I could have been the ONLY poster on this thread to have ever won an EE argument with you?!? :8) Well at least it shows that "Mom & Pop" aren't as Dead, Dead, Dead as you know what. But on a more serious note. Another company in which I have an interest (RMTR) has inferred that it has some IP that could aid DRDRAM in coping with its Latency issues. As I recall there were hearsay rumors of discussions with INTC/RMBS years ago concerning a possible deal with this IP company in connection with RDRAM, but nothing was ever mentioned in the press and nothing came of it as far as I know. There could certainly be a number of reasons for this "failure to interact", including the possibility that RMTR doesn't know what its talking about. But it has occurred to me that one of the reason's for this might involve INTC's view of the future - at least the view it held back in the days when it was designing the PII/III. At the time I recall INTC was building some "packet" friendly instructions into the core of the PII/III and asserting that future processor's would rely on this methodology to an even greater degree, and I read something today that reminded me of it. I can see why this "packet" idea would be great for many streaming, PC/TV, communications type applications, but on the PC side this kind of "com traffic" would seem to require some remarkable changes in the way PC's are used. Let alone the way software is designed. When I first heard of this years ago I assumed that INTC and MSFT knew something about the future of PC/software that the rest of us didn't. But in the intervening years I had written this off as a "Mom & Pop" problem of misunderstanding on my part. But now even us M&P's know, DRDRAM's bus is clearly structured with an eye towards the transfer of large chunks of this very same "packetized" type data. And when I think of the time, capital, and political resources that INTC has put into forcing RMBS onto the desktop, I have to wonder. Is INTC trying to force this round "packet" peg into a random access PC hole, for more reason than simply forcing the DRAM Fabs to relinquish control over their product (which has been my assumption); so that they can dictate the nature of the PC from stem to stern? It boggles my mind to think that INTC would believe that the future of the computer involves an increased transmission of packets and less random access. In my little M&P world the computer has always stood first and foremost for the power of manipulating mass quantities of data in an infinite variety of ways of the users choosing. This "packetized" future sounds like a PC as "spiget" view of the world. One where the keyboard is relatively unimportant. No better than a remote control that gives you access to fixed channels of streaming data! Please tell me I am missing the big picture here. Tell me that the powers that be have NOT decided that my future PC will be limited to the level of interactivity and creativity of a PS2! If this is where we're headed then I for one refuse to be "assimilated". ...Although I might be persuaded to put a little cash into those "content providers" that used to be all the rage. (Hee Hee:8) 0\|0 P.S. I am leaving again now Dave B. Carry on. You should be safe from any re-visitations for at least a fortnight. :8)