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: Zeev Hed who wrote (58150)	10/19/2000 9:36:12 AM
From: Sam P.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, Your opinions change with the wind and I now have you on ignore.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (58150)	10/19/2000 9:52:25 AM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

I don't think Barrett said support of Rambus was a grave mistake. I think he said that being reliant on Rambus was a grave mistake. I believe either these comments are bad news or Barrett is showing a lack of professionalism a la Gateway's remarks about Intel.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (58150)	10/19/2000 11:46:27 AM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev: You are over-reacting to two short quotes which have been elegantly draped between 1000 words of speculation by one of the world's finest financial rags. Message 14614660 I don't think that merits your conclusion: "After Barrett says that the support of the bu$$ was a grave mistake, he will be expected, like any other businessman to cut his losses and plan for the future. Is that plan a RDRAM less DRAM market?" Are you now short? BP

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (58150)	10/19/2000 12:12:54 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi Zeev Hed; You should note that Intel has already given half of its chipset business to VIA, and VIA supports only SDRAM and DDR. VIA is working on a P4 chipset, and Intel is praying that it gets out on time. Because of VIA, Intel's ramp of the P4 is not dependent on RDRAM. Read Intel's own comments on the subject, here: Intel Corp.'s top executives said Tuesday that the company will likely grant licenses to third-party vendors to supply double-data-rate (DDR) chipsets for next-generation Pentium 4 processors. ebnonline.com Intel is in prayer mode that VIA will get its DDR solution for P4 out in 1Q01. VIA wants it too. My guess is that it will be late, and the P4 ramp will not be as fast as Intel wants, due to the dependence on RDRAM. -- Carl

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (58150)	10/20/2000 7:00:00 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, After Barrett says that the support of the bu$$ was a grave mistake, he will be expected, like any other businessman to cut his losses and plan for the future. Is that plan a RDRAM less DRAM market? I really do not know. I have to assume that Barrett's comments are those of a man who has seen the P4 run in every conceivable configuration with DRDRAM 'radiators' attached. This in turn leads me to conclude: A) The performance he's seen does not justify the pain incurred of designing their CPU so as to maximize the alleged "sweet spot" of DRDRAM performance; and/or B) He has seen the facts and arguments related to these anti trust/JEDEC related claims being made by MU, and now Hyundai, and he felt compelled to send a message that INTC does not like being associated with a "toll collector". Either way its bad news for RMBS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that INTC has no intention of paying the Bus Driver for its SDRAM/DDR controllers, bridges, MotherBoards, etc. And it would take a massive competitive advantage for DRDRAM to outweigh the possibility of having to cough up royalties to cover the SDRAM/DDR IP claims RMBS could make against INTC. Without a chance of DRDRAM taking over the desktop, INTC is just another "SDRAM/DDR IP Licensee" as far as RMBS is concerned and their is no way INTC won't fight that. TA is nice for folks who watch this issue like a hawk and employ "stop loss" protections; but I don't see how it could protect a "long" time Bus Rider from severe pain if INTC were to join the list of plaintiffs in these unfair trade practice complaints, or merely shows up to provide testimony in support of Infineon's and MU's European defense. RMBS is a long way from establishing "Pax Rambusus" and there are still some huge shoes yet to fall. 0\|0