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: Dan3 who wrote (53600)	9/16/2000 2:18:43 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 93625

RE:"it was the responsibility of Rambus to make that a useable design that could work with other components." Does it really surprise anyone that it couldn't? Didn't Microsoft supposedly omit things from Windows? Hint? Jim

To: Dan3 who wrote (53600)	9/16/2000 2:28:01 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dan, But there is no question that RDRAM design was involved, and that it was the responsibility of Rambus to make that a useable design that could work with other components. Your hatred of Rambus is blinding you, buddy. First, Intel designed the chipsets, not Rambus. So it's Intel's responsibility. Second, why would Rambus have any responsibility to make RDRAM signals work with SDRAM chips? Their responsibility (and mission in life) is to make RDRAM signals work with RDRAM chips. If Intel engineers screwed up the conversion of RDRAM to SDRAM signals and back, it was Intel's fault. Suppose Via decided they want to build a Timna RDRAM to SDRAM chipset? If it didn't work, would that be Rambus's fault? Or the Via chip designers? Dave