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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (111876)	9/29/2000 8:46:35 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Kash, <I have said it many times Barrett is a bust.> I disagree. I think Barrett is unfairly being blamed for most of Intel's troubles. Yes, the finger must point somewhere, and yes, as CEO it's Barrett's responsibility to fix things. But I feel like getting rid of Barrett would be like tossing out the baby with the bathwater. And there's no guarantee that whoever replaces him will do any better. In short, I am no fan of the George Steinbrenner method of "reorgs". Barrett has proven himself to be a fine manager back during his COO days, and there's no proof that all of Intel's troubles can be traced back to his shortcomings (unlike Eckhard Pfeiffer, I suppose). Perhaps with the Timna cancellation, the alleged Pentium 4 delay, and the time it's taking to release Itanium, Intel is trying to prevent further screwups once and for all. Maybe then, Barrett will once again be seen as a great CEO instead of the embarrassment of the semiconductor industry. Tenchusatsu

To: kash johal who wrote (111876)	9/29/2000 11:05:03 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Rambus has been a DISASTER for the company. Just for fun, I pulled up this blast from the past I wrote to our buddy Paul in August of 1999: Sorry if the rambus issue seemed off the point, but it's what got me interested in the whole INTC / AMD story in the first place. I wouldn't expect AMD to maintain a clock for clock performance lead for long (if they attain one at all). But Rambus seems to have been something of a disappointment so far and if all current design efforts at INTC are based upon the expectation that Rambus will be the main available memory technology for the next several years, INTC could be forced to make minor to major changes in chipsets, motherboards,and processors. This would impact (not crush - impact) many aspects of the most profitable part of their business. I brought it up in the VIA discussion because it's the behavior of these two companies over the PC133 issue that leads me to think that there may be (may be - not is) a serious problem for INTC due to rambus right now. Message 10764184 I know that you, Ali Chen, Scumbria, TWY, DRBES, Kapkan4u, and many others had already made similar observations. I think this problem has been pretty obvious (to everyone but Intel) for a long, long, time. Regards, Dan

To: kash johal who wrote (111876)	9/30/2000 5:04:21 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Kash: Harsh words you speak, but to be honest, I have trouble refutting them. Frankly, I am shocked that a company as large as INTC with its INCREDIBLE resources could fritter away so many opportunities so quickly in what I think anyone would have to admit has been a great business environment even the past 12 months. I am not ready quite yet to crucify Barrett as most of the problems probably were developing before he took over, they just came to light under his stewardship. To this day, I cant figure out the Rambus thing. I am not a technician and look at this solely from a business viewpoint. I have to PRESUME that INTC has sufficient quantities of technical people that they knew TECHNICALLY what they were doing when pushing Rambus now the question is was it a good business decision or was top management DAZZLED with flashing lights? Dont laugh, I have dealt with VERY TOP management much of my career, and I have met PLENTY of them that could be DAZZLED. Monday morning quarterbacking I guess one could easily say RMBS was a disaster for INTC but what about the facts at the time the decision was made. Why did they make it? I have to presume again they felt RMBS could make their product distinct and clearly a step above the competition. BUT, then I read some of you technicians who claim that RMBS is ONLY of value at extremely greater CPU operating speeds then were in existence at the time and are now only JUST becoming available. Why didnt management know that, if its true, and why did they push it apparently prematurely. I dont know the answers but I do know that INTC does not LOOK or FEEL like the INTC I used to know. They need in there IMHO somone who can KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES. I hate to admit it but that was my management style. Its not a job that makes one popular and certainly destroys a CLUBBY atmosphere but its very effective IMHO. JDN