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: wanna_bmw who wrote (73589)	3/5/2002 9:56:32 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

wbmw, I open up my encyclopedia, and find a blank page under Yamhill. Either it doesn't exist, or it's far out in the future, I just posted you a link of comments by HP's IA-64 chief. He seems to know a lot about it. How can it (Yamhill project) not exist? Is the HP guy making it all up? As far as Yamhill being far out in the future, I would sure hope so. Itanium's slow sinking and Yamhill delayed would be an ideal scenario for AMD. If Intel wanted to compete with x86-64 now before it launches, then they would have had to make a call to action, and start the FUD early. Intel management has not concluded that Itanium is a failure - yet. Part of Plan A is not to acknowledge that Plan B exists, because acknowledgement of Plan B makes it even tougher for Plan A to succeed (not that it has not have enough problems of its own) My speculation is that when Intel announces Plan B, the decision to pull the plug on Plan A has already been made. Like what happened with Rambus support. And by the way, I don't appreciate your continued insinuations about the source of my knowledge. Everything I post here is off the top of my head, unless I state otherwise. I'd thank you to remember that in the future. I don't think my insinuations are "continued". They are isolated only instances when I have a perception that you are posting from a script. Joe

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73589)	3/5/2002 11:04:35 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

And by the way, I don't appreciate your continued insinuations about the source of my knowledge. Everything I post here is off the top of my head, unless I state otherwise. I'd thank you to remember that in the future. OK...let's get the air cleared here. There has always been a strong suspicion on my part that you are an Intel plant. That is... you either work for Intel, worked for Intel in the past, or in SOME (parents/siblings/etc) way are associated with Intel. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, as long as you disclose such a relationship. I think you can end a lot of suspicion here by simply stating you have no such (or ANY) relationship with Intel other than what might be described as that of a VERY interested stock holder. Anything short of a complete denial of any such association will just amplify the suspicion. It is very hard to believe that some one with a real job and real responsibilities would have the time to monitor every post on two threads and participate to the extent that you do. By the way...what is it that you do? Specifically as in a job description?? THE WATSONYOUTH