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: tcmay who wrote (137284)	6/13/2001 10:25:41 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Tim, RE: "Part of my recent skepticism about Intel's new focus on "communications" is related to the "last mile" problem: the real communications bottleneck is related to our (America's) infratructure" ---------------------------- I really think Intel should get a bit more active in this issue - within the industry and also the government. If Intel doesn't push this, who will? Regards, Amy J

To: tcmay who wrote (137284)	6/13/2001 11:10:27 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim, re: Yeah, I agree. For a lot of corps with 500 MHz machines sitting on the desktops of their secretaries (excuse me, "human interface engineers") and purchasing agents and all, it's not a compelling decision that they upgrade all of these machines to 1 GHz and beyond... While I admit that a 40 MHz non-PPC Mac is just too sluggish to me (I'm now working on a 400 MHz PPC Mac, a G4 Tower), his point probably applies to tens of millions or more cases. Once a machine is fast enough to handle all reasonable intended uses, many users have little interest in upgrading... What I'm saying is that all of us, including the bean counters within small businesses and larger corporations, have to decide when it makes sense to upgrade existing systems. For my friend the noted PC architecture consultant, his 40 MHz 68030 or 68040 is apparently "fast enough." For many others, including some SI subscribers I know here, 400-800 MHz Pentium 3s are "fast enough." _____________________ If anyone were to agree with your opinion that there will not be an upgrade cycle in the future, they would be wise to sell their Intel position. If there is no added value to increased processor speed, if less than 1 GHz is all that folks will need in the future, the cpu product will very quickly degenerate into a pure commodity with gross margins closer to 10%-20% than the current 45%-60% range. There will be very few IAG profit dollars to offset the multi-$Billions Intel is losing in "other businesses". Intel stock, my guess, would be worth somewhere south of $5. I believe you said in a previous post that most of your portfolio is in Intel stock. Why? John

To: tcmay who wrote (137284)	6/13/2001 11:13:16 AM
From: Dave Budde	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I agree with everything you said. So Tim, besides the obvious capital gains issue, what is keeping you in Intel stock?

To: tcmay who wrote (137284)	6/13/2001 6:22:06 PM
From: FJB	Respond to of 186894

"How many readers here really know what .Net is supposed to deliver?" I'm very impressed with the .Net initiative from Microsoft and also Sun and IBM's solutions in this area. I believe they allow the developer and end-user to treat computer systems separated by great physical distances as almost a single single system. That's obviously been done before, but programming for something like this is getting easier every day due to some of these new protocols like SOAP. You don't have to know how SOAP works though, you can program at an even higher level. A nice, simple example of what this enables is the new games under Accessories->Games in XP. Anyone that installs WindowsXP, can play a bunch of games against random/anonymous people on the Internet. Your computer in this case is providing web services as well as being a client. Intel is very excited about this point to point stuff I think. A server for the game would only need to keep track of people signing on and off(maybe scores in some cases), but the client in this case is also providing web services via .Net or whatever competing solution. Bob

To: tcmay who wrote (137284)	6/14/2001 2:05:19 AM
From: stak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim, I'd venture that part of the lack of knowledge about .Net is Microsoft not wanting to spread full details of it's all encompassing plan ...yet . I'm always interested in hearing what's going on with this intiative. If you've got a chance please post a few details. TIA >>I follow the ".Net" thing through an interest I have in Smalltalk. A guy I respect, Dave Simmons, is a principal developer of Smallscript, a Smalltalk-like core ingredient of .Net. Having said this, I expect most PC users to say "Huh?" to this new thang called ".Net." Maybe a year from now the average user, and the average corporation, will have heard of it. For now, though, it's a curiosity, barely on the edge of the radar screen. (How many readers here really know what .Net is supposed to deliver? And of those, how many care what a product is _supposed_ to deliver, as opposed to what is actually shipping?)<< >>His point was that he's not editing movies or designing chips, his downloads are more constrained by bandwidth than CPU power, and that his ancient 40 MHz machine does what he asks it to do.<< I sure don't have that kinda patience, I like the speed myself , but just don't need bleeding edge nowadays to get the job done. That just goes to show the divergence of computing needs and uses. Nice anecdote from your lunch. >>Once a machine is fast enough to handle all reasonable intended uses, many users have little interest in upgrading.<< Yes exactly and trying to convince them otherwise is a toughie. Especially if they've got a PIII machine. >>Machines became fast enough to handle 30 frames per second, HDTV-resolution video a couple of years ago. (Modulo download speeds, of course!) It's not clear that most users will feel the need to upgrade to speeds beyond this. << I think they will but not at the traditional prices that Intel/AMD has been used to getting in the past. stak

To: tcmay who wrote (137284)	6/14/2001 2:20:24 AM
From: stak	Respond to of 186894

Tim, I hope at very least it's "viable" for Intel. I'd give them a year more to get on track. >>Part of my recent skepticism about Intel's new focus on "communications" is related to the "last mile" problem: the real communications bottleneck is related to our (America's) infratructure. Old copper cable running down country lanes, draped through decaying urban corridors, etc. Until ADSL and cable modems are more widely available, or, better yet, fiber optics, then most PC users will be more constrained by communications speeds than by CPU speeds. And laying copper or fiber optic cable is not an Intel specialty. Hence my skepticism that "communications" will be a massive market for Intel. << stak