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: Charles Gryba who wrote (153121)	12/24/2001 10:45:02 AM
From: semiconeng	Respond to of 186894

Elmer, I don't want to defend the non existing hammer or put down the extremely slow-selling Itanium but currently their presence in the market is about the same. C It's interesting how you seem to equate "non-existing", with "slow selling", and call them "about the same". Those 2 situations don't appear to be about the same to me, but I digress. That's certainly some kind of (cough) "interesting" logic you seem to have there Charles..... Since you're not "defending" or "putting down", or anything...... Semi

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (153121)	12/24/2001 11:17:14 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I don't want to defend the non existing hammer or put down the extremely slow-selling Itanium but currently their presence in the market is about the same. While there may be little difference numerically between the small number of IPF systems shipping[key word here] and the big goose egg for Hammer, which position would you rather be in if the future of your company depended on it? BTW, I'm talking about the future of AMD here, not Intel. Also would you be gloating about the competition's temporary delay of one system out of several currently shipping[key word again] when you didn't even have silicon yet? EP