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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (21202)	11/16/2001 9:13:56 PM
From: wily	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

I doubt that they have separate 256, 512 and 1.0 gigabit production lines. I would guess the opposite, but I really don't know. At 512 megabit densities I am still unclear as to how smaller CF and SM cards are manufactured (8, 16 and 32MB). Do you understand how "chop-chop" works? I didn't hear Eli's original quote on the subject, but I gathered that he was talking about disabling some of the capacity on a chip to sell it at a nominally lower density. The reasoning I would guess is that you mis-planned your production split and don't want to drive down prices by giving bits away, eg., selling 32MB cards at 16MB prices. Seems like an extreme thing to do, but maybe it really happens. Haven't heard of it outside this thread. Finally, thanks for the clarification on Ovonics. You explanation makes good sense. Still, I think that Eli and crew have a big head start on OUM at this stage. It will take a few years, IMHO, to see how much of a threat OUM, FRAM, MRAM,... will prove to be. It's very hard to say if/when OUM will ever debut. Intel last July had a future-nv press bonanza, highlighting their initiatives in OUM and polymer-FRAM. Here's some links from that day: video interview with Stefan Lai: news.cnet.com My transcription of the interview: messages.yahoo.com EE-Times coverage: eetimes.com Intel pdf -- this is the best source: intel.com zdnet story: zdnet.com Basically, Lai thinks that OUM can function as a 'true' memory in mobile applications, replacing SRAM and Flash in most, and sometimes needing SRAM integrated on the OUM chip, which is supposed to be much easier to do than with Flash. Lai says there is a lot of software complexity you can eliminate by not having to deal with a very slow technology like Flash. Speedwise, there are several orders of magnitude between Flash and DRAM, and OUM fits in the middle. They like OUM vs MRAM because of its density advantage, having a basic cell size smaller than even DRAM or Flash. It's hard to say how speculative OUM still is at this point. I had thought initially when I heard Intel was farming out the OUM chip design work to Azalea that this was a brush-off, but then I found this article showing that Intel is also having Azalea work on the 4-bit Flash design: siliconstrategies.com Well, they've got their fingers in a lot of pies -- have to spread out the risk. NROM is another interesting comer -- here's a post I made a while back: Message 16242408 Careful with my analysis as it may not be true <g>. wily