Carl,
Here is the other half:
*************************************************************
Message 14509951
Carl,
I was wrong. Your description of DDR-II is pretty much exactly what I found.
A brain fart on my part.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 13617577
Dan3,
Welcome back! Did you come back to do some more bad math for us?
Carl doesn't make oracle like pronouncements. He explains exactly why he has concerns regarding technical aspects and gives many links to backup his discussion.
"Dead, dead, dead" is definitely an oracle-like pronouncement. Carl says that no one is designing RDRAM into new projects. I'm not sure how he knows that, sitting in his little corner of the Great Pacific Northwest. Does he lecture in Chicago? Do book tours in Atlanta? Give presentations in Taiwan. Handy and Iwanyc travel more, meet more people and are much more heavily involved in the industry than Carl could ever hope to be (unless he proves me wrong by showing me his lecture series, his book tours, etc.).
He doesn't just say "Rambus will own 10% of the DRAM market in 1999" like those analysts at Dataquest did. He carefully explains why he doesn't expect that to be the case.
Actually, he usually arrogantly explains things, and oftentimes he's incorrect. I'd rather trust someone who has some real contacts with the memory manufacturers, and to whom people tell their detailed future plans than to someone sitting in a cubicle in Seattle or wherever.
Nevertheless, I suggest you ignore Carl, comply with your own analysis
I'd love to but he keeps posting...garbage...that has to be responded to (see the most recent tongue-lashing by Plaz). I'm just trying to understand why he should be considered a credible source. I'm looking forward to his response rather than a bunch of wannabes who come to defend him. I doubt you know much about his credibility either. If you do, please feel free to post his bacfkground and accomplishments so that we can all put our unbending faith in him as you do.
and shift all of your assets to Rambus stock. It will serve you right.
Thanks, I did. I caught most of the run from 85 to 471. I was out from 113 to 203 while we were on vacation (given the volatility, I didn't want to own it while we were gone), and then sold everything at 440-447. I had a few small losses on the way back down ($5 to $10 each for 2 or 3 trades). Most recently I bought again at $170, $180, $196, and $212 and sold at $225 for a tidy, what, 1 to 2 week gain. I'm flat now. Luckily I don't listen to Carl, otherwise I'd believe that RMBS was "dead, dead, dead".
Now why don't you go back to the AMD thread. If you won't bother us here, I promise not to bother you there.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 13909136
Carl,
To get to a 4x, Rambus is likely going to double the bus width to 32/36 bits ... and also double the frequency to 1600MHz.
They've already announced (last January/February?) that that's exactly how they're going to do it. Aren't you keeping up?
Actually, it appears I was wrong. Someone else pointed out that they'll use the quad-data-rate technology so they're not doubling the frequency.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 11942257
Dan,
Here's some of the anti-Rambus hyperbole (positioning?) from your post that I find as grating as you all find the pro-Rambus hype:
Shipments at levels that are more than samples should be in the hands of end users starting some time next month. That beats Q1 of 2000, but just barely. It's been a long 3 years for PC rambus.
Since Intel chose RDRAM over DDR it's been an equally long 3 years for DDR. Probably longer since they've been fighting an uphill battle the whole way, whereas Rambus has been gaining design win after design win along the way.
VIA is showing pre-production silicon for DDR (which may just be a licensed version of Micron's samurai chipset - so I won't count Micron as another vendor) but AMD is also showing its pre-production DDR silicon.
Whoop-de-doo. Intel is showing production silicon for RDRAM. What's the big deal showing pre-production silicon? As AMD has shown for years, and as Intel has shown recently, there's still often a long gap between pre-production and production runs. Are you saying that the DDR chipset production from here is going to go without any hitches whatsoever? If so, then you're guilty of the same hubris that many of suffered with respect to the 820.
And of course then they have to get Dell, Compaq, HP, et. al. to actually use it. More hubris if you think they're just going to be standing in line to put DDR chipsets in their boxes. It's as much a marketing game as a technical game. Where's the driving force behind driving DDR acceptance? Who's verifying that all of the DDR DIMMS will interoperate? Lot's of work to do still. The "if you build it, they will come" mentality has led many companies into bankruptcy.
Good luck with such pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Just keep in mind that so far Semico has been right, and Dataquest has been wrong
You made this statement with respect to Semico's forecast that RDRAM in 1999 would have 1.7% of the market versus Dataquest's 5% forecast. Since neither company expected the 820 to be delayed and both forecasts were made when September was the expected ship date, this is a very self-serving statement. Semico didn't say that it would be 1.7% because there would be a delay -- they said it would be 1.7% because they didn't think it would ramp very rapidly. Since we still haven't seen any shipments, we have no idea how fast the ramp is going to go and you can't make any statements about either forecast. Certainly, since it appears we're not really shipping until December, it is extremely likely that the share for the year will be virtually 0%. But as I mentioned in the post to Carl, the thing about forecasting is to verify that, even if you're correct, you were correct for the right assumptions. And so far we can't test either set of assumptions. So at this time no one is right or wrong yet.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 11929385
Carl,
I didn't mean to be sarcastic. In fact, I sort of tried to swear that off.
I wanted you to know that I noticed it and appreciate it. FWIW, I've found in my career that opinions and comments delivered with no intent to belittle or mock tend to be taken more seriously, and I'm reading your posts with much more interest. I still think you're wrong about the long-term memory roadmap, but I check your posts more closely now.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 15390911
Carl,
Since you're apparently not going to rewrite that post in English, I'll take a stab at the p.s. at least. Tomorrow you can try to clear up the first part.
At least when I made up a rumor I did it after hours and corrected it before the market opened the next morning.
LOL! So let me get this straight. It's okay to make up a bulls**t lie as long as it's cleared up before the market opens. Does that extend to the rest of your life? It's okay to tell the boss a lie as long as you clear it up before business starts the next day? Is it okay to tell your wife a lie as long as you get it cleared up before you have sex with her again? What, exactly, is the statute of limitations for "clearing up a lie"? Before someone else finds out? In spite of the fact that someone might have believed it in the meantime and sweated things a bit? Do you need to "correct" it before the pre-market session or just before the regular session to make it no longer a lie?
What a screwed up sense of ethics you seem to have.
Scumbria: just so I don't have to ever argue about this with you again, take note that Carl has admitted again to his lying to the thread. And I'll say this one more time for you as well -- just because someone lies or commits a crime doesn't make it right for someone else to do it. Whether Reagan or Bush or whoever did anything wrong doesn't excuse Clinton. Stop using that lame defense. IMO, they all should have probably been impeached or jailed. Just because Joe robs a bank and isn't caught doesn't mean that Frank shouldn't go to jail when he robs a bank and is caught. Is this sinking in, yet?
Here's a prediction: You're never even going to admit that you were less than truthful.
Well, that didn't take long for you to be wrong. If you'll check the top part of your own post, you'll find that you copied my phrase "In spite of the fact that I said "I'll" hold them, the reality is that I can't touch them. " What is that except an admission that I was not correct in my original post? So I admitted it before you even predicted that I wouldn't. You, too, apparently could use some help with reading comprehension. (p.s. I also bought and sold INAP in my trading accounts once last year. I may, in fact, have been talking about those shares, but I don't have my records with me in Florida and can't be certain. I'll let you know when I get back home.)
You're a sanctimonious @sshole.
I can be. Usually when I meet regular a**holes. Liars, hypocrites, etc. annoy the s**t out of me.
And that's not all. I also predict that you don't have any problems with dishing it out, but you can't take it.
Take what? So far you've posted one laughably misleading and incorrect post about "liars", which I corrected for you, and one rambling post I haven't been able to figure out. Oh, yeah, and one idiotic post on the INAP thread, for which I've apologized to them for you. And, of course, that strange message about AMZN where you later admitted that I didn't say what you thought I was saying.
I can certainly handle that. ln fact, you're serving up softballs. C'mon, fire up that search engine! But read the stuff you're posting first to make sure that it at least makes sense.
*************************************************************
Message 15506338
Carl,
Now that you understand that RDRAMs do not follow a tight standard, why do you believe that RIMMs follow a tight standard? RIMMs are made of RDRAM. That means that RIMMs made from different RDRAMs are different. It is quite possible for a chipset to work with one but be marginal with another. It is possible for a chipset to not work with RIMMs that have particular numbers of particular types of RDRAM. This has already happened. Where RDRAM has so far been lucky is that there are only three chipsets using it, and only 2 companies that have produced much RDRAM. In other words, RDRAM is such a niche product that they haven't had the full experience of finding out whether they are compatible or not.
Should I take your rambling, generic response to indicate that you haven't found any evidence to back up your claim that RDRAM suffered incompatibility problems? You asked for a challenge, and I offered it. As I said, I'm certainly willing to admit I'm wrong if you find the evidence (just like last time <G>). This time, however, I think you spoke before you thought.
Team DDR has admitted to DIMM incompatibility problems, just as we said there would be. Unless you find something no one has come up with yet, the same cannot be said about RDRAM.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 15506375
Carl,
You think computer technology needs a "central authority"?
Let's see --
Rambus = Central Authority = no compatibility problems with RDRAM
Team DDR = No Central Authority = compatibility problems with DDR
I'm sure you can figure out the answer, but here's some help:
Compatibility problems = angry customers = Bad
No compability problems = happy customers = Good
Get the picture? It doesn't take long to get a bad reputation and have people abandon the technology. Do I think that will happen in this case? No. But bad press can certainly slow down the adoption. Waaaay down.
Communist? Nice try, but you're barking up the wrong tree. When an industry has a history of trying to cut corners, the only way to make sure that the ultimate customer gets a quality product is to put in controls to ensure that the appropriate designs are implemented. Not communism, but an application of free-market capitalism to ensure that the customer is satisfied and comes back for more.
I have no doubt that Team DDR will work out the problems. Intel helped them with 100Mhz SDRAM, and while I don't know if Intel will help again, they at least have a model for how to approach the problem. You can only hope they get it fixed before everyone gives up on it (as system memory in the PC, of course).
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 14473034
Scumbria,
If you exaggerate to make a point, that is OK. If I do the same, that is an ethics problem.
Very duplicitous.
Attack the accuser, eh? Gonna call me a bimbo or trailer trash, next?
It is not okay to exaggerate to make a point (BTW, are you now admitting that you exaggerated? And that you were wrong?). How would you feel if I had simply responded to your original post that, yeah, it may take $200 of RDRAM but it'll take $500 of DDR? Wouldn't you want to know where the hell that number was coming from? Wouldn't you call that number a load of BS?
In a sense, all I was trying to ask was whether you were making this up (exaggerating) or if you had a real source. You refused to answer. You evaded the question. You feigned indignation.
Maybe you're here just to "pull the bulls tails" as well.
Of the two of us, I'm not the one with the ethics problem. You're welcome to point out any posts where I've exaggerated and it hasn't either been an obvious joke, or I haven't apologized for my mistake already (since I don't "exaggerate" on purpose).
BTW: Republican Presidential affairs and lies under oath are OK?
LOL! What does this have to do with anything we're discussing? Nice subject change, again.
However, you can go back and read my posts on this subject that are already public record (apparently you haven't so far). Affairs are nobody's business (presidential or otherwise), though I wish people had enough honesty and character to not have affairs. Lies under oath are punishable by law. It's not a political issue. I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party, Communist, or Socialist.
Why do you think ethics should shift with political affiliation?
As I said to Carl, I'm not interested any longer in your BS. We now know that you were "exaggerating" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), so I don't even care if you find a link anymore. I know that you were making it up, and that's all I asked originally.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 15368505
That is about the dumbest post I've seen from you yet.
Another insult. That's usually a sign that you have no rational response. If you don't want to know what I think of you, then don't ask -- it's that simple.
BTW: Wadda ya think about that Electronics News article Carl posted? Proud of your favorite company?
It'll be interesting to see what comes out. I think Carl may have made a mistake in reading part of what he posted. The following quote: “…The things we should not do are to not speak up when we know that there is a patent issue, to intentionally propose something as a standard and quietly have a patent in our back pocket we are keeping secret that is required to implement the standard and then stick it to them later (as Wang and Seeq did). I am unaware of us doing any of this or of any plans to do this.” sounds to me like the Rambus folks are saying that they're not going to submarine anyone or try to sneak anything past the council.
We'll let the chips fall where they may (pun intended). For people with ethics, a wrong is a wrong even if it's committed by your side, and shouldn't be condoned. It's not okay to do wrong because "the other guy does it, too". If Rambus has received some of their patents unethically, then they should lose their patents and probably minimally pay everyone's court costs and give back related royalties.
p.s. EN has not been a fan of RMBS. We'll see what all the documents say soon, I assume. I won't be surprised if EN has taken things out of context.
*************************************************************
Message 15543631
Pomp,
Documents appear. Hmmmmm.
Yes, you're paranoid <G>. The interesting thing is why this shows up now (kind of like in a Perry Mason made-for-TV movie for the over 40 crowd, or an episode of LA Law for the 30 and under crowd)? Did they really think they'd get away with dropping it on the doorstep a week before the trial?
I may have to duplicate Scumbria's efforts to download the Rambus thread so I can search for all the bears who claimed that Rambus only tried to get SDRAM royalties when RDRAM didn't succeed, that Rambus submarined the patents so that they could claim royalties on SDRAM later, and so on and so forth, and then point out how wrong they were.
Nah, that would be infantile and a**hole-ish.
I wonder how many will stop by to admit they were wrong. Clearly not Carl.
Dave
*************************************************************
Message 15334923
Like when George Bush Senior arranged a drug transaction in front of the White House, so that the dealer could be arrested, and he could talk about it in his speech?
Changing the subject again?
If it gives you a hint as to one of my issues with you, let me ask you a couple of questions. What does what GB or RR or WJC have to do with Carl lying? If they lied, does that make it okay for Carl to lie? If GHWB or RR lied, does that make it okay for WJC or Carl to lie?
My answers to these questions are "nothing", "no", and "no". To me, these are separate events, all of which are bad, none of which excuses the others. To discuss the potential transgressions of WJC, one does not need to worry about whether or not RR or GHWB transgressed as well. One does not excuse the other.
And Carls "false fact" is still a lie, and is still wrong, regardless of how many drug transactions GHWB might have arranged.
Scumbria |
