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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (74798)	6/22/2001 12:45:46 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

"my paradigm is that computers are already good enough with sdram for 95% of application." Why a electric bulb... we already have candles? Why a gas engine vehicle... we already have a horse and buggy? Why a television... we already have radio? Why a zipper... we already have buttons? Why a gas stove... we already have a coal and wood stove? Why a _____... we already have a _____?, etc., etc., etc., etc. Let's play fill in the blanks!

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (74798)	6/23/2001 1:09:27 AM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

my paradigm is that computers are already good enough with sdram for 95% of application. Skeeter, I agree with you. The computer I use is a 266 Mhz Pentium II with MMX. I have no need to upgrade or change with what I currently do. But, then again, when I was going to law school I had a computer that ran at a think 4 mhz, and had 640K of memory, and it was an extraordinary computer. It got me through law school etc., and I saw no need to have to upgrade from that computer as well. Word and Excel worked just fine. The funny thing is, is that with Moore's law working, you can buy a computer with 20x the memory and practically 1000x faster today for the same price that I bought that computer for in 1991. When you go to upgrade your computer, whether or not that 4 mhz speed and 640k is great for everything you do, you will end up buying something more like a 1 gig+ computer today with 128 mb of memory, because you can get it for the same price. Add to this the fact that if I wanted to upgrade to any usable Windows OS, my old system would just not work. And none of the software I use today is compatible with the old DOS OS I was using back then. Heck, I have Windows 95 games that don't work on my Windows 98 system. If the price/performance doesn't get you, the inevitable software upgrade cycle will. They work in tandem. Maybe the rules have changed. Maybe this time it is different. But it is at least my opinion, supported by historical evidence, that Moore's law will propel forward and that software will be written to take advantage of this greater computing power. In two years time a 1 ghz computer may seem a lot like my 4 mhz computer seemed as I upgraded to 166 mhz DELL computers which ran my law offices, to the upgrade to my current 266 mhz laptop. The reason I don't think this will change is that we have had this discussion over and over again over the years. The wealth creation in this industry is completely tied to the continuing of this upgrade cycle. Except for a few smaller players who might try to "televisionized" the industry (and AMD is certainly not one of those players, but Micron may be) it is in no one's interest to do so. Not even the consumers as who knows what will come next. I certainly miss the days of DOS when I could just type in hexadecimal code to tell Excel to print, or I could turn on the Apple II and in machine code rig the 12 line musical, artistic program I designed on any machine in the show room. But can you tell me, that except for computer hackers like myself, and early adopters, that the much more easily accessible Windows design of today is not much, much, better for the world, and is the key driving force of the ubiquitous computing we have today? Again, maybe this time it will be different. But at least in my opinion that is short sighted. That this is a pause and by 2003 we will be off to the races again with another cycle. The question is, does RDRAM or DDR get us there. RDRAM certainly scales much better. The price of RDRAM is certainly falling like a rock. The only thing falling faster is the price of SDRAM and DDR to below production costs. The fact that DDR is now so cheap and has yet to have any successful mass market product launches on the desktop is quite telling in my opinion. And yes Taiwan is full of stories commenting on new RDRAM boards coming out, etc. What Bilow is speeling is clearly a very one sided story. But that is my view point on the matter. It is just going to be very, very, very painful if Dataquest's latest estimates of DRAM revenues falling to $14 billion in 2001 come anywhere near to the truth. A 55% drop in revenue. At that rate I don't think it matters who is right, at least during 2001. Tinker