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: techreports who wrote (78868)	10/2/2001 3:27:12 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 93625

>>When steam was invented people said that traveling with horses was safer and better and that railways were dangerous and noisy<< i didn't say that. economically, it is very different so your comparison only makes sense given a lack of economic understanding. >>That's the same question people were asking when Mcdonalds came out. Who would pay $1.99 for a hamburger that tastes like card-board and a coke? Apparently, over a billion.<< tech, take econ 101. people value convenience and speed at mcdonalds and other fast food places. again, people aren't paying more for no gain. in fact, they are paying less in many cases and save time, too. again, very different economics. >>Skeeter Bug, get off this investment forum. Your just one of those computer freaks that think they're way is always right. Let me guess, you were probably predicting the down fall of Aol, huh?<< wrong. AGAIN. i never really analyzed aol. i used it for awhile and didn't get much benefit from it. i will say this, though. aol does offer a few serious points of value to some folks. many professionals don't want to change their e-mail addresses. they started with aol and they'll keep aol. in addition, many people can sign on with one account fairly easily. >>business 101: if the price falls, volume increases<< WRONG AGAIN! tech, you are nothing if not consistent. rotflmao! volume increases over what it would have been without the price decrease, all else being equal. again, this thread is not an economicS class. resolving personal economic ignorance is a personal issue. go to a local community college. idc is predicting that unit pc sales would be flat this year (even with the price decreases!!!) BEFORE september 11. gigo. >>Even with the price of PCs falling INTC did 33.7 billion in revenue up from 26.7 billion in 1998<< yahoo has them doing $30.4 billion over the last 12 months. i find it funny that you go out of your way to manipulate statistics. what happened to comparing 2000 to 1999 - a more recent comparison? or how about to the recent 12 mos compared to the prior 12 months? guess they both were discarded even though they were more recent b/c it didn't fit you jam job. cherry picking numbers. absolutely patheitc. >>Dell went from $18.2 billion to $33.8 billion even though the price of PCs have fallen.<< total pc revenues are down big this year. quit living in the past. this isn't the late 90s go go years. they are gone. >>So tell me again, if folks REFUSE to pay over 2k for a computer, then how are the OEMs and Intel increasing their revenues? I know, do you?<< in the past, they sold more units (as a group), they bought other businesses (and their corresponding revenues) and they expanded their own offerings. unit shipments will likely be DOWN this year (contrary to your statement above -lol-). cpq is reporting big losses. dell is having SERIOUS operating problems (didn't they just report a LOSS?). you have selective memory. you exclude the present to hang on to the past. you probably think rmbs is trading at $60... -ng- >>Now you're just talking out your a-hole.<< ah, the old ad hominem gig, huh? so sad... ..The first DOWN earnings doesn't mean Microsoft is a commodity company.<< tech, where did i say msft was a commodity company? i didn't you get loud and obnoxious defending a point i NEVER made? i'll assume you aren't that dumb and this charade is to mask the FACT you didn't post the requested information and can't respond to the links i provided you. you lack of class is duly noted. I SAID MSFT HAD DOWN EPS. >>First, I've never claimed to know which memory will be the standard. Second, the game isn't over. Once you realize you have no idea how business works, will you please be man enough to admit it? Your computer nerd side is taking over and keeps you from making rational thoughts. I swear. Computer nerds have gotten it wrong so many times, it's not even funny.<< sounds like a computer nerd complex. i know my way around computers b/c i can learn logical concepts reasonably well. kinda like economics. i have an engineering and management background. i learned computers to make the process of managing more efficient - i got tired of waiting for other folks (like mis or management) to figure out there was a problem so i solved it before they became aware of it. man, you leap to ridiculous conclusions that are almost always wrong. >>If price was the only factor, AMD would control the market, because they have the best price/speed ratio! But you know this already.<< tech, stop being ignorant. i never said price was the only factor. it is cost/benefit. intel has lots of benefits over amd. if mis buys intel and the chips are screwed, mis lives to fight another day. if they buy amd and the chips are screwed, they're more likely to get fired for not going with the de facto corporate standard. however, this attitude is changing and amd has made HUGE inroads of late. first into the consumer market. precisely b/c the perceived cost benefit ratio is shifting, albeit rather slowly. btw, since you don't pick up on things very well, this same risk averse behavior is screwing rdram. sdram works. rmbs is a new risk. if sdram or ddr fails, no biggie. if rdram fails, mis is looking for work. >>Right, if you want to run word RDRAM isn't faster. RDRAM wasn't made to run basic applications like word. It was made for other things,<< exactly. it was made for niche activities and that is why it will be a niche product. >>which is why Intel selected it.<< why do you suppose they are deselecting it now? or is this fact too hard to comprehend when your head is 2 foot below sand level? >>No. You didn't back up any of your facts. Why should I do that for you?<< actually, i did. i posted several links that showed rdram had "statistically insignificant" improvements over 266 and a link that quoted intel saying pc133 matched rdram. Message 16440493 Message 16440372 so, tech, stop using ad hominem to hide your weakness behind. stop lying (have some dignity!). argue your points and back them up or come off as a spoiled child with no sense of reality. hey, you do fit in on pumping rdram! ;-)