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: Bilow who wrote (75139)	6/29/2001 12:29:45 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

bilow, bad design engineers make my life difficult. very few seem to understand that a design has to be robust enough to handle the variations within a production process effortlessly or else they've created frankenstein (most folks don't understand variation well). all these wannabe types want to think everything is jit, tqm, kaizen, cf or whatever the latest buzzword is. what they don't realize is that a lot of the hype behind these buzzwords is only marketing to sell books and tout certain companies. are they good ideas? to a point. one needs to understand the cost / benefit dynamics (econ 101) to apply them correctly. in totality, all i really need to know about rmbs is that performance isn't much better (if at all!) and it costs a boat a load more. bad cost / benefit ratio - therefore, niche market where the benefit is worth the cost. very simple. the ONLY argument that might hold some water is that rdram has much better performance as the ghz goes north of 2k. my first response is, so what, 1 in a thousand need a computer that fast. i would appreciate your take on how well ddr will perform against rdram as the processor speed moves north of 2k. tia...

To: Bilow who wrote (75139)	6/29/2001 2:13:03 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

"Why didn't anyone besides Intel decide to use RDRAM?" In other words, why didn't VIA, AMD, SiS, Serverworks, ALi, IBM, Nvidia, ATI, PMCS, Apple, etc., use RDRAM? Why did Intel decide to use DDR? I really don't know why I even try, like talking privatization of social security with the left wing of the Democratic party. But maybe a better question is why do Intel systems dominate corporate America, why does Dell only offer Intel, why has Compaq decided to scrap their Alpha chips and go with Intel, geez, I don't know. Maybe system quality. Whatever. But I see this thread has bogged down to the point that RDRAM is now even slower than SDRAM100? Yes sir, no one delusional here at all. I'm out of fantasy land, take it back, it is all yours. Tinker