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: Scumbria who wrote (54842)	9/23/2000 12:31:39 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria> The facts are clear. That IS the problem NOTHING IS CLEAR Only the posters BIAS IS CLEAR.. Don

To: Scumbria who wrote (54842)	9/23/2000 9:00:10 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, Sorry no can do. With DDR still being vaporware and losing the 0% market share that it currently has, including in the only market segment that it was supposed to have to itself (servers), RDRAM's potential is growing by the second. QRSL in graphics cards will be a reality in 2001. RDRAM in HDTVs and set top boxes is already a reality. The Pentium 4 is only a few weeks away from reality. Timna the same. So if anything, the RDRAM potential for the next 12 months is great and growing bigger even as we speak, where on the other hand the problems with DDR are just beginning. Still vaporware, still paper released, still none in the channel, still losing designs in servers, still dead end. So DDR discussion is irrelevant as DDR is dead end. SDRAM will still rule in 2001 with RDRAM taking more and more share as the year progresses. DDR is a minor niche player. Even VIA now says that no volume DDR PCs will happen till late 2001. Kiss DDR goodbye.

To: Scumbria who wrote (54842)	9/23/2000 9:00:38 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, It is obvious from your posts that you are a fairly intelligent person. You can argue a point effectively and seem to have technical knowledge and experience. In fact, I would say, from your posts, you are much more intelligent and knowledgeable than many of the RMBS longs here. I am sure we can benefit from your honest views on this thread and it is unfortunate that sometimes yourself and some of the more reasonable longs argue heatedly. What I don't understand is how you manage to come out with this sort of stuff: "The facts are clear. 1. DRDRAM has very little potential over the next 12 months, and possibly forever" Firstly, Intel is basing its newest processor on RDRAM. Intel is the sort of company that will admit and remedy mistakes rather than try to save face. If they thought RDRAM was dead, they would have said so. Secondly, as an engineer, you MUST accept the technical benefits of RDRAM. I am not saying that you should support it, but any reasonable person with technical knowledge can see there are advantages that make RDRAM a real contender for moving a real system bottleneck as we go into a time where the P4 is about to launch. Thirdly, whatever your personal preference, or the weighting you put on RDRAM disadvantages compared to the advantages, it is totally unreasonable to say the facts are clear and that RDRAM has very little potential. Something with very little potential would not be being produced in such quantity, and be planned for mainstream products such as Timna and P4 from a company like Intel. Same for Samsung, Sony, Sun Microsystems etc. I can't reconcile your bias so my assumption is that you know what you say is not true. I hold a similar assumption for some of your friends e.g. Bilow, whilst certain other shorts (and longs) are just idiots. This is just an assumption but I haven't seen any feasible explanation for you to take your apparent Rambus stance. And comments like the taxation of petrol in the UK has not risen under Tony Blair really don't help your cause.

To: Scumbria who wrote (54842)	9/23/2000 9:07:42 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

<<The facts are clear. 1. DRDRAM has very little potential over the next 12 months, and possibly forever. 2. Rambus future is tied to the outcome of legal actions related to DDR. I wish the thread could drop the discussion of #1, and focus instead on having an intelligent discussion about #2. Scumbria >> Scumbria - mid to long term I certainly disagree with you about #1 However - Short term - because people can not see far enough ahead and analysts can not see what is in front of their noses, I have to agree that the short term price of RMBS (which is all I care about now) is very dependant upon RMBS winning its lawsuit. The market is acting right now as if it believes MU's case is WEAK WEAK WEAK. If there are lawyers out there - preferably unbiased I would like to here from them. We have had one such opinion already - from someome who admitedly does not like RMBS technology but thinks their patents are solid. This to me is even better because the person had a bias against the BU$$. I reiterate my position. This baby is going to go dramatically one way or the other. I say up, Zeev says up. Hop on the BU$$ gus! Sorry Scumbria does not rhyme well.

To: Scumbria who wrote (54842)	9/24/2000 9:21:32 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, I wish the thread could drop the discussion of #1, and focus instead on having an intelligent discussion about #2. LOL! The facts are clear. 1) You have no pull on this thread and what you "wish" just ain't going to happen. 2) If you're tired of this thread, stop reading it and start another thread to discuss #2. Of course, if you did that (and anyone came), we'd just continue to disagree as we do here and nothing would be different. You know, I'm starting to wonder if you really told me the truth when we got together that night. You just have too much interest (and spend too much time) in trashing Rambus, trashing RDRAM, and trashing this thread. Maybe what you told me is true, but maybe you didn't tell me everything? Dave