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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (138095)	6/25/2001 3:54:53 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

Ten, good old McSquealy revving it up again? I just want you to know that you and all the rest of the IA64 team, including the new allies at Compaq, have the whole rest of the future of the computer world on your shoulders now. Got it? ;-), but not really ;-) Tony

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (138095)	6/25/2001 4:20:44 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Cheney and Bush won't let antitrust actions happen << Here's a choice, quoted from EBN (and taken from the AMD Mod Thread, thanks Maui): ebnews.com Analysts said the deal could stir protests and possible antitrust complaints from Sun Microsystems, which is gearing up for a titanic battle against Intel's efforts to move heavily into the 64-bit server and workstation market. >> First, this is not a "deal" in the sense of requiring SEC/FTC/DOJ approval, in the way the GE/Honeywell deal did, for example. This is largely a decision by Compaq to drop significant future work on the Alpha and to transfer some people and technology to Intel. This makes Antitrust action unlikely. Second, the Anti-Intel, Anti-Microsoft Pro-Gore Axis LOST THE ELECTION. The consortium of Intel- and Microsoft-bashing tech companies bet on Al Gore. He lost. Just as the charges against MS are about to be refsnarted back to the lower courts and ultimately will fizzle away, action against Intel is impossible to imagine. Neither Cheney nor Bush will support action against Intel. Sun thought the world would adopt their processors because of Java...didn't happen. Netscape thought they would become the "next Microsoft," because the browser would become the OS...didn't happen. With Sun's UltraSPARC falling further behind, expect them to also cut a deal to adopt IA-64. We are seeing at the high end just a replay of the "industry standard, open architecture" history seen in the 1980s and 90s with PCs. --Tim May

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (138095)	6/25/2001 6:58:08 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Ten - Re: "Sun Microsystems, which is gearing up for a titanic battle against Intel's efforts to move heavily into the 64-bit server and workstation market." Shouldn't this be an "ITanic battle" ? Paul

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (138095)	6/25/2001 7:33:34 PM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 186894

Ref < Possible Antitrust Complaint by Sun > Sun will not have a leg to stand upon for an antitrust suit. Sun had the same choice as Compaq and turned it down. It can still choose Itaninium. Just because Sun's competitor outsources its CPU development and becomes more cost effective, does not constitute antitrust behavior. Clearly McNeely is going to be under intense pressure to abandon the SPARC, and he may have some fast talking to do so he can justify his old decisions. If Sun does not act fast, Sun will get less and less ISV support, and will get marginalized. CPU Hardware is not Sun's forte. The UltraSparc family is a laggard in performance, and SUN's fiasco with lack of ECC on its Level 2 cache showed lack of good CPU engineering skills at Sun. Sun's strength is excellent marketing, its outstanding software environment, strong JAVA based enterprise computing, and its large customer base. However if the hardware lags the industry, and the ISV walk away, Sun could lose it all. The bottom line is that making stupid choices does not constitute grounds for filing an antitrust suit.