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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (60828)	10/29/2001 12:12:36 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

"If SGI didn't get this info, that IBM, Dell, Compaq, IBM and others got, they didn't do there sourcing homework." Actually, SGI made the mistake of believing Intel when they presented their roadmap. They stopped development on their own MIPS chips and planned their switchover. Then when Itanium was delayed for several years, they didn't have a fallback. Now true, SGI was in bad shape before, but that certainly didn't help.

To: Tony Viola who wrote (60828)	10/29/2001 12:32:15 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Respond to of 275872

If SGI didn't get this info, that IBM, Dell, Compaq, IBM and others got, they didn't do there sourcing homework. If you want to say that SGI switched to Itanium before it was known that Merced wasn't going to be a volume product, I say they shouldn't have put all their eggs in one basket. Five years ago the roadmap was very different. According to Intel back then, SGI would now have been selling their amazing new server product for a couple of years. SGI's revenue position could have been very different. Sure, it was SGI's decision and and I agree that they were stupid to sign up to the Itanium so wholeheartedly. But it is a shame that it is the smaller server companies that are being decimated by Intel's technical incompetence.